80 temples demolished in Modi's capital

[Awesome]

Asim you successfully derailed the thread.

As if the whole thing wasn't implied...

The whole point was to showcase that he's not just razing down Muslim places of worship.

 

[Vinod2070]

Nothing wrong with that.

In India, such illegal places of worship are very common, blocking numerous streets, highways and other land that can't be used for productive purposes because any fool can capture any land by constructing a religious structure illegally.

There should be nothing sacrosanct about these illegal structures whichever religion they belong to. They should make way for development that benefits citizens of all faiths and if some are really important to people, they can be relocated.

 

[Flintlock]

As if the whole thing wasn't implied...

The whole point was to showcase that he's not just razing down Muslim places of worship.

Actually I posted the news because I myself was surprised.

BTW - Modi hasn't actually razed any muslim places of worship- not that I have heard of anyways.

In any case, aren't muslim places of worship supposed to be purely utilitarian?
I heard a muslim on TV once say that the quran can be read anywhere, and the mosque was not a sacred place but simply a convenience.

Hinduism is quite different - the location of the hindu temple itself is of far more significance than the temple itself. Even if the temple is non-existent, the spot remains sacred. Of course, the temple, too, is sacred.

 

[Awesome]

Nothing wrong with that.

In India, such illegal places of worship are very common, blocking numerous streets, highways and other land that can't be used for productive purposes because any fool can capture any land by constructing a religious structure illegally.

There should be nothing sacrosanct about these illegal structures whichever religion they belong to. They should make way for development that benefits citizens of all faiths and if some are really important to people, they can be relocated.

Babri Masjid really wasn't encroaching on anyone's territory.

Hmmm I seriously doubt that there are that many mosques built on the road. And we all know how much red tape there is involved in getting land legally as well. That too in an anti-Muslim state.

For Muslims, they can pray out on the streets, in a room, in ground, anywhere. Well certain degrees of cleanliness applies but you get my point.

 

[Imran Khan]

Actually I posted the news because I myself was surprised.

BTW - Modi hasn't actually razed any muslim places of worship- not that I have heard of anyways.

In any case, aren't muslim places of worship supposed to be purely utilitarian?
I heard a muslim on TV once say that the quran can be read anywhere, and the mosque was not a sacred place but simply a convenience.

Hinduism is quite different - the location of the hindu temple itself is of far more significance than the temple itself. Even if the temple is non-existent, the spot remains sacred. Of course, the temple, too, is sacred.

yes he right whole world is mosqe for muslims but a mosqe have some place were muslims can pray and come united but friday ramzan and eid days mosqe need must for preyers so its most important place of islam also

 

[Flintlock]

Nothing wrong with that.

In India, such illegal places of worship are very common, blocking numerous streets, highways and other land that can't be used for productive purposes because any fool can capture any land by constructing a religious structure illegally.

There should be nothing sacrosanct about these illegal structures whichever religion they belong to. They should make way for development that benefits citizens of all faiths and if some are really important to people, they can be relocated.

That would be the ideal case, but an article in the Indian Penal Code exists which makes it illegal to destroy any object which is held sacred by a section of the community. So if you can prove in the court that an object held sacred by a significant number of people was destroyed - for whatever reason - you can get upto 2 years in jail or something.

 

[Vinod2070]

Babri Masjid really wasn't encroaching on anyone's territory.

Well, many people would disagree with you on that. As per them it was built on the place by razing an ancient temple most sacred to Hindus.

Why would Babar the alien invader go all the way to Ayodhya to build that mosque otherwise?

The same is true for ancient temples in Kashi and Mathura. You will see mosques standing next to ancient temples. The most sacred cities to Hindus have mosques standing on them next to our holiest places. Its not a pleasant site for many people.

Kashi temple was destroyed by Aurangzeb. There is no doubt about that. There are claims that 30,000 temples were destroyed (and many converted to Muslim places of worship) during the long Muslim rule.

Hmmm I seriously doubt that there are that many mosques built on the road. And we all know how much red tape there is involved in getting land legally as well. That too in an anti-Muslim state.

For Muslims, they can pray out on the streets, in a room, in ground, anywhere. Well certain degrees of cleanliness applies but you get my point.

There are innumerable Dargahs smack in the middle of the road. Its more difficult to relocate a mosque in India for development than in Pakistan and Saudi.

I know there is a dargah that falls smack in the middle of a national highway near Delhi, that causes all vehicles to slow down and take a detour. There are several examples of that in India. I think the Dargah should have been relocated if it was really important for some but it should not cause loss of productivity on a daily basis.

Same is true for temples or any other worship place.

 

[Awesome]

That would be the ideal case, but an article in the Indian Penal Code exists which makes it illegal to destroy any object which is held sacred by a section of the community. So if you can prove in the court that an object held sacred by a significant number of people was destroyed - for whatever reason - you can get upto 2 years in jail or something.

There is a proper religious way of demolishing a mosque. The provision IS there. But thats only if you care about people's sentiments. An illegal structure has to go. But that doesn't mean you bulldoze over all the Quran books inside. You're just inviting trouble that way.

A mosque props up to serve a community for religious purposes. There has to be a NEED for a mosque in a particular community. If a mosque is in an illegal zone then that probably means there is a need for it. That means that someone ought to do something about providing the necessary prayer space.

It doesn't have to be sponsored by the government but perhaps the BS red tape involved can be looked into. If one REALLY aims for harmonious living it CAN be done. Even in Gujarat. But to expect that out of a murderer?

 

[Vinod2070]

That would be the ideal case, but an article in the Indian Penal Code exists which makes it illegal to destroy any object which is held sacred by a section of the community. So if you can prove in the court that an object held sacred by a significant number of people was destroyed - for whatever reason - you can get upto 2 years in jail or something.

Relocate them to some other place if it is really important for many people. Else let them find one of the several other worship places.

More often such issues are used for local politics than anything else.

 

[Flintlock]

There is a proper religious way of demolishing a mosque. The provision IS there. But thats only if you care about people's sentiments. An illegal structure has to go. But that doesn't mean you bulldoze over all the Quran books inside. You're just inviting trouble that way.

It has been done before in India. Sardar Patel famously demolished and relocated the mosque which was present at Somnath in Gujarat.

Somnath is one of the most sacred places in Hinduism, and, well as usual, it had a mosque on top. So, the Home Minister himself had the mosque relocated, and the new temple built in its place. There was no rioting, and no bloodshed.

Unfortunately, after Patel, no other Indian politician was willing to look into the other numerous Hindu holy spots taken up by Muslim dargahs. This obviously did nothing to please the hindus, and when the patience finally dried up, people went berserk and demolished the one at Ayodhya - perhaps THE most sacred place in Hinduism - the birthplace of Lord Ram himself.

A mosque props up to serve a community for religious purposes. There has to be a NEED for a mosque in a particular community. If a mosque is in an illegal zone then that probably means there is a need for it. That means that someone ought to do something about providing the necessary prayer space.

Which is why I maintain that if an agreement can be reached between hindus and muslims, whereby the mosques currently occupying hindu holy spots can be relocated brick-by-brick, it will go a long way in assuaging the feelings on both sides.
As of now, there are simply too many bad memories for Hindus - too many tales of loot and bloodshed which find an increasing number of takers every year.

It doesn't have to be sponsored by the government but perhaps the BS red tape involved can be looked into. If one REALLY aims for harmonious living it CAN be done. Even in Gujarat. But to expect that out of a murderer?

Modi, whatever you think of him, has proved to be one of the most progressive and able Chief Ministers in the history of India. And that is saying a lot!
I'm pretty sure he will find a way to keep both communities happy.

Also - and I'm going out on a limb here - I predict that Gujarat will not see communal riots for a considerable period of time to come.

 

[Awesome]

Well, many people would disagree with you on that. As per them it was built on the place by razing an ancient temple most sacred to Hindus.

That doesn't exist. No historical evidence of it.

Why would Babar the alien invader go all the way to Ayodhya to build that mosque otherwise?

C'mon the mosque is much older than Babur! He only renovated it. He didn't even consider the mosque significant enough to put it in his Babur Nama (Babur Chronicles).

The same is true for ancient temples in Kashi and Mathura. You will see mosques standing next to ancient temples. The most sacred cities to Hindus have mosques standing on them next to our holiest places. Its not a pleasant site for many people.

Next to is different from razed to the ground and replaced. It shows that the mosque builders were tolerant of other faiths. Hardly the same could be said about the crowd in Ayodhya in 1992.

Kashi temple was destroyed by Aurangzeb. There is no doubt about that. There are claims that 30,000 temples were destroyed (and many converted to Muslim places of worship) during the long Muslim rule.

Didn't you just say they were side by side each other?

That is just a Hindu account of things.

But even if its true, it doesn't prove that there was anything but a historic mosque at that location. A temple was erected much later on and the fight started when Hindus tried to encroach upon the mosque area and were repelled by and also denied access to it by Nehru as they were obviously in the wrong.

Then they figured hey Ayodhya is said to be the birthplace of Rama. Who's existence is doubtful too. So they made up a story over the years.

There are innumerable Dargahs smack in the middle of the road. Its more difficult to relocate a mosque in India for development than in Pakistan and Saudi.

Dargah's aren't really mosques. It's a Shrine. A grave man. How did it pop up over a road? Or did some smart *** tried to build a road over it?

I know there is a dargah that falls smack in the middle of a national highway near Delhi, that causes all vehicles to slow down and take a detour. There are several examples of that in India. I think the Dargah should have been relocated if it was really important for some but it should not cause loss of productivity on a daily basis.

A dargah must be like 100 years old right? How did the Delhi Highway come about there?

Anyway not a mosque... It's a lost simpler to move a grave. But there should be a proper way. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Vinod2070]

Next to is different from razed to the ground and replaced. It shows that the mosque builders were tolerant of other faiths. Hardly the same could be said about the crowd in Ayodhya in 1992.

Well there are hardly any non-Islamic places of worship in Saudi. Are there?

Erecting mosques in the holiest Hindu cities after destroying their temples is going to be offensive to many people. Even their presence in our most holy places could be for many.

That is just a Hindu account of things.

But even if its true, it doesn't prove that there was anything but a historic mosque at that location. A temple was erected much later on and the fight started when Hindus tried to encroach upon the mosque area and were repelled by and also denied access to it by Nehru as they were obviously in the wrong.

Then they figured hey Ayodhya is said to be the birthplace of Rama. Who's existence is doubtful too. So they made up a story over the years.

Just do a google search for Aurangzeb's destruction of the Kashi and other numerous temples, his forced conversions of Kashmiri Pundits. Also read up on why did he murder Guru Teg Bahadur in the most inhuman way.

There are many doubtful things about every religion including yours. Its just a matter of faith, isn't it?

Dargah's aren't really mosques. It's a Shrine. A grave man. How did it pop up over a road? Or did some smart *** tried to build a road over it?

A dargah must be like 100 years old right? How did the Delhi Highway come about there?

Anyway not a mosque... It's a lost simpler to move a grave. But there should be a proper way. That's all I'm saying.

Agreed, they should be moved respectfully if they come in the middle of the road alignment and a realignmment is not practical.

 

[Awesome]

Well there are hardly any non-Islamic places of worship in Saudi. Are there?

Saudi has stupid laws and they hardly do anything right. Ok now I get it, and I won't argue any more, if you guys are the Hindu counterparts of THEM.

Erecting mosques in the holiest Hindu cities after destroying their temples is going to be offensive to many people. Even their presence in our most holy places could be for many.

Why? Muslims live there. They should have their own places too. It is not Hindustan now is it? It's a secular country.

Just do a google search for Aurangzeb's destruction of the Kashi and other numerous temples, his forced conversions of Kashmiri Pundits. Also read up on why did he murder Guru Teg Bahadur in the most inhuman way.

They all used to murder their enemies in a cruel way back then. Different times. If he didn't he would be teased by all his peers.

There are many doubtful things about every religion including yours. Its just a matter of faith, isn't it?

Other than the existence of God? Prophet Muhammad was very real. We didn't make him up.

Agreed, they should be moved respectfully if they come in the middle of the road alignment and a realignmment is not practical.

Zigzaging a road is very easy. Man people are bending over backwards to preserve landmarks and you guys want to destroy your own history. Very Saudi like, in fact.

Your initial comment explains a lot!

 

[Vinod2070]

Saudi has stupid laws and they hardly do anything right. Ok now I get it, and I won't argue any more, if you guys are the Hindu counterparts of THEM.

Saudi indeed have stupid laws and are hypocritical in the extreme. But one has never heard any protest against them from Pakistanis or any Muslims. So one would assume you are in cahoots with them.

Its not "we guys", but there could be people who would see the blatant hypocrisy and say "what the hell".

Why? Muslims live there. They should have their own places too. It is not Hindustan now is it? It's a secular country.

It is a secular country with Hindu ethos. That is what makes it secular in a region ravaged by fundamentalism.

Obviously a fundamentalist country can't teach us the basics of secularism! Now, can it?

They all used to murder their enemies in a cruel way back then. Different times. If he didn't he would be teased by all his peers.

But then don't claim that none of this ever took place or that Muslim rule was tolerant. It was not.

Other than the existence of God? Prophet Muhammad was very real. We didn't make him up.

Islam is not about the existence of Prophet Muhammad. It is about believing what he said.

That is where 85% of the world is in disagreement.

Zigzaging a road is very easy. Man people are bending over backwards to preserve landmarks and you guys want to destroy your own history. Very Saudi like, in fact.

Your initial comment explains a lot!

I said that if it is practical, preserve it, else relocate it if it is important for sufficient number of people.

It should not depend on whose place of worship it is.

 

[Flintlock]