PDA

View Full Version : Evidences about Ayodhya doubtful



Asim Aquil
09 Jul 06,, 23:07
Basically all what the hindu fanatics claimed about Ram's birthplace have been BS and just an excuse to demolish the 500 year old mosque.

Now do the right thing and rebuild a mosque on the site. At least it'd prevent any backlash from the Muslims this time.

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/01-15July05-Print-Edition/011507200533.htm

"Evidences about Ayodhya doubtful"

The Milli Gazette Online

Lucknow: Mahant Dharam Das’s witness Bishan Bahadur (who is also a historian) while deposing before the special commissioner Hari Shankar Dubey in Babri Masjid ownership case on the second day admitted that Ayodhya‘s history is missing in many cases and whatever proofs or evidences are available are doubtful. In reply to Zafaryab Jilani’s queries, he contradicted his own statement made the previous day that Mohammad Ghauri and Shahabuddin Ghauri are two different persons. He said today (on 27 April) that both are the same person. He said that he had made a wrong statement because he had high blood pressure.

Again, contradicting his previous day’s statement he said that he had wrongly stated that Shahabuddin Ghauri had come to Ayodhya before 1192. He said that Shahabuddin Mohammad Ghauri had demolished only one Jain Mandir in Ayodhya and said that the allegation that he had destroyed all temples Ayodhya is wrong.

After seeing the British historian Neville’s book, he said that this is an important proof of history. He agreed with the writing in the book that at that time Kaushalya Bhawan of Ayodhya was itself considered the Janmabhoomi but he could not say how far is Kaushalya Bhawan from Babari Masjid.

He further said in his statement that Ayodhya’s Guptar Ghat is not mentioned in history but its tradition is very old. He also agreed with Neville’s views, as mentioned in his book, that Ayodhya’s existence is from ancient times but its complete history is not available. He also agreed with the writing in the historian Dr Sushil’s history book that whatever evidences about Ayodhya are available are doubtful. He said that during the periods of Moghul kings Jahangir and Shahjahan, Ayodhya’s importance had very much increased. He also admitted that there was no political or religious activity in Ayodhya from 650 AD to 1050 CE. (Rashtriya Sahara, April 28, 2005)

Ghauri did not attack Ayodhya

Lucknow: Mahant Dharam Das’s witness in the Babri Masjid ownership case, Bishan Bahadur who is also a historian said in response to a question by Zafaryab Jilani that the king Mohammad Ghauri had never attacked Ayodhya. Testifying before the special commissioner, Hari Shankar Dubey he described Shahabuddin Ghauri and Mohammad Ghauri as two different persons and said that Shahabuddin Ghauri never ruled over India because after attacking, he used to go back.

He said that Shahabuddin Ghauri attacked India for the first time in 1191-92 when he had defeated Qannauj’s Raja Jaichand and gone back after that. About Mohd Ghauri he said that he had attacked India for the last time in 1194. He further said that Shahabuddin Ghauri had come to Ayodhya much before 1192 when Gaharwal ruled over Ayodhya. After attacking Ayodhya, he had gone back and thereafter Gaharwal’s rule was re-established but he could not say whether war between Shahabuddin Ghauri and Prithvi Raj Chauhan had taken place or not. He said that Shahabuddin had come to attack Ayodhya but he could not say what was his other motive. He said in his statement that Mohammad Ghauri had died in 1206 but he could not say when Shahabuddin Ghauri died.

Lawyers and audience in the court were intently listening to this witness though he was inconsistent. During cross examination he was roaming here and there and very often contradicted his own earlier statements. (Rashtriya Sahara, April, 27, 2005)

"Towers of Babri converted into domes in 1934"

Lucknow: Ramesh Chandra Tirpathi, witness of the opposite party in the Babri Masjid ownership case while testifying before special commissioner Hari Shankar Dubey said that in 1934 all the three towers of Babri Masjid were deformed and turned into domes. In reply to Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqi’s question on behalf of Muslim parties, he admitted that except Babri Masjid he has not seen any temple with three domes. He said that in 1934 even after the change of towers into domes this building (Babri Masjid) remained a temple.

He said that on the basis of the shape and architectural style of this building it cannot be called a temple and he also would not have accepted it as a temple but since puja is going on here,, it is a temple. He said that on the basis of traditions and lore he is saying that after 1934 Muslims did not come here nor was namaz offered here. He said that the contention of some people that what he calls a samadhi are in fact the mazars of Muslims is wrong.

During cross examination by Zafaryab Jilani earlier, he said that whatever he had said in reply to Jilani’s question he had come to know from his father. He had heard from his father whatever he had said about Janmasthan and the idols placed inside Babri Masjid before 1949. Similarly, he had heard from his father that no namaz was ever offered in Babri Masjid. He however could not say what was the fate of goods and idols placed inside the mosque when Babri Masjid was demolished. In any case he said that he has heard that in the existing make-believe temple the idols were placed by Mahant Dharam Das on 7 December 1992 with all respect. (Rashtriya Sahara, May 19, 2005)

“Babar was in Ayodhya for a week in 1528”

Lucknow: Bishan Bahadur, witness of Dharam Das in Babri Masjid ownership case, who is also a historian described the writings of all historians as wrong and said that Moghul king Babar had stayed in Ayodhya from 28 March to 2 April 1528. In reply to a question by R. L. Varma, witness of Nirmohi Akhara, he said that there are proofs that Babar had stayed in Ayodhya.

He further said that when Babar had defeated Ibrahim Lodhi, his Afghan governor declared himself independent. Therefore Babar had come to Ayodhya to control the governors and to clip their powers. He also disputed the contention that Babar had by-passed Ayodhya and had gone beyond Tanda via Sultanpur. But he said Babar had not established his rule here (Ayodhya). His commander Mir Baqi had demolished the temple in Ayodhya and had built a mosque over its debris. He said that after remaining for about a year and a few months in Ayodhya Mir Baqi had gone back.

It may be stated that Mir Baqi’s mazar is still there in a village near Ayodhya. Mir Baqi also demolished the temple built by Gaharwal dynasty. He said that Babar had first come to India in 1519 and had attacked India 5 times and in 6th attack he had defeated Daulat Khan Lodhi in Punjab which is now in Pakistan. He said that one of the reasons for Babar’s attack on India was that his forefather, Taimur Lung had ruled over Delhi. He further said that in accordance with his policy Babar demolished temples in India so that Islamic rule could be established in India.

Rectifying his earlier statement, he said that Sayed Salar Masood Ghazi of Bahraich was not Mahmood Ghaznavi’s nephew but his sister’s son. Mahmood Ghaznavi had demolished Somnath Temple and many years later Sayed Salar Masood Ghazi had demolished Ayodhya’s temple. He said that these rulers did not build any new building after demolishing the temples. With this, his cross examination by Nirmohi Akhara’s lawyer come to an end. (Rashtriya Sahara, April 13, 2005)

One more claimant of Babri land

Lucknow: One more claimant of Babri Masjid land has appeared on the scene. He is Shivinder Pratap Shahi, manager of Shri Rajeswari Sita Ram Trust of Sultanpur who has filed a writ in Faizabad court in which he has made Union of India, state of UP, district magistrate of Faizabad, Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Central Waqf Board, BJP president L.K. Advani and a few more as a party. In his petition he has claimed that he is an heir of king Prithvi Raj Chauhan and therefore he is the rightful owner of this land which should be given to him.

The court admitted his petition and thereafter issued notices to Union government, BJP president Advani, VHP leader Ashok Singhal and some other people and bodies whom Pratap Shahi had named as parties. Shahi says that some people are playing politics in the name of Babri Masjid Ram-Mandir dispute. He further said that acquisition of the disputed land by government in its custody is also wrong because it is clear from some documents that it is his land in proof of which he had submitted certain documents in 1998.

He says that there are approximately 2000 acres of land in the custody of his Trust, on 100 acres of which he wants to build a Ram Mandir, a mosque, an engineering college and one medical college.

He says that according to Nicholas Gazetteer, some people of Prithvi Raj family had embraced Islam during the period of Moghul emperor Babar and hence Muslims are their brothers. (Rashtriya Sahara, April 23, 2005)

Building of Ram Mandir beyond the power of BJP

Ayodhya: Officiating President of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Trust and Mahant of Mani Ram Das Cantt, Naritya Gopal Das, while repeating the resolve of building of Ram Mandir said that the most important event in the Ram Mandir movement took place during the prime ministership of Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru when Ram Lalla ‘appeared’ here. He said this while addressing a meeting after garlanding a life size picture of former president of Ram Janmabhoomi Trust, Param Hans Ram Chandra Das. He said that it is beyond the power and capability of BJP to build the Ram Mandir and accused BJP of forgetting Ram after coming to power and that is why it was voted out of power.

Addressing BJP’s former state president Vinay Katiyar personally, who was also present in this meeting he said that an active leader like him is badly needed for leading the Ram Mandir movement and advised him to materialise the dream of Param Hans Ram Chandra Das. He also advised him not to run after power because governments come and go and added that we sadhus will support him (Katiyar) and others as nation’s lathi. He said that even otherwise the ‘dhancha’ itself is a sort of temple because prayers and worship are taking place there and added that when the stones are being carved, sooner or later the temple will be built and it wont take much time.

Speaking on this occasion, Vinay Katiyar shed detailed light on the history of Ram Mandir movement and said that Param Hans Ram Chandra Das had given the task of leading the Ram Mandir movement and building it in Ayodhya to VHP. He said that whether he is in power not, he will always be active in this movement. (Rashtriya Sahara, April 13, 2005)

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 05:04
one word... yawn...
it's nice to know that we have some opposition to Hindu fanatics... muslim fanatics like Asim... :biggrin:

lemontree
10 Jul 06,, 05:51
Evidence or no evidence....build the temple to compensate for the thousands of temples destroyed by the mughals.

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 06:10
First of all one requires evidence that Islam is a religion of peace.

Terrorists, warmongerers, those that kill their own (Shia Sunni), kill innocents should not talk of morality or evidence.

Samudra
10 Jul 06,, 06:18
Somebody is sure very getting desperate these days.
i.e The Milli Gazette.

I guess the Babr built building was not technically a mosque because they were using it as a urinal for sometime? :eek:

And Moslems generally built mosques on the site of demolished temples.

Rest in Peace.

Confed999
10 Jul 06,, 07:01
The guy repeatedly contradicted himself, and that's evidence? He'll be saying something different next week...

veera8
10 Jul 06,, 07:08
the only religion which took so much pleasure in demolishing other relgions worshipping places is ---no other than brutal islam ...

asim,
we dont have any obligations to prove the birth of RAM with all creditials ..its our " HOLY LAND " and we will for sure will built RAM MANDIR in ayodhya .....

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 07:50
Evidence or no evidence....build the temple to compensate for the thousands of temples destroyed by the mughals.
Waaaaaaat?

So the Indian government's policy is going to be to take out what the Mughals did (in Pre-Indian times) on its Indian Muslim citizens?

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 07:53
First of all one requires evidence that Islam is a religion of peace.

Terrorists, warmongerers, those that kill their own (Shia Sunni), kill innocents should not talk of morality or evidence.
Why does one "First of all" require that in a supreme court of India's case determining whether or not there' been a Ram Mandir on the site of the Babri Mosque which was demolished by a mob of Hindu fanatics in broad daylight taking several hours to do so without any intervention from the government bodies.

So many wrongs and you "first of all" see Muslims as terrorists?

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 07:54
Somebody is sure very getting desperate these days.
i.e The Milli Gazette.

I guess the Babr built building was not technically a mosque because they were using it as a urinal for sometime? :eek:

And Moslems generally built mosques on the site of demolished temples.

Rest in Peace.
We're talking about the Babri mosque. You'd need to PROVE it.

Milli Gazette is an Indian paper.

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 07:58
the only religion which took so much pleasure in demolishing other relgions worshipping places is ---no other than brutal islam ...

asim,
we dont have any obligations to prove the birth of RAM with all creditials ..its our " HOLY LAND " and we will for sure will built RAM MANDIR in ayodhya .....
Islam's fanatics are just part of recent history and a short one. People of other faith have caused a lot more destruction to temples. Your faith on the other hand is the one that's destroying more places of worship now than anyone.

I thought India was a SECULAR land not your holy land. And why would you build Ram mandir where Ram wasn't even born? Ayodhya is a big place, build it on the side. But don't reward mobsters by building it over the site which they razed to the ground.

OrdinaryGuy
10 Jul 06,, 07:58
Waaaaaaat?

So the Indian government's policy is going to be to take out what the Mughals did (in Pre-Indian times) on its Indian Muslim citizens?

umm.. if you know so much about ayodha i'd suspect you also know that the mosque is being guarded police and no fanatic is being allowed to come close to it.

India's supreme court as well as the central government both maintain the status quo policy

lemontree
10 Jul 06,, 08:15
Originally Posted by Asim Aquil
Waaaaaaat?

So the Indian government's policy is going to be to take out what the Mughals did (in Pre-Indian times) on its Indian Muslim citizens?
My good man, please explain to us poor souls, what does "pre-Indian" times mean?
Does it mean when the dinosaurs lived? OR when Indians were descovering plastic surgery and the arab nomads were still grazing sheep?
The right term would be "pre-Pakistan times". India existed as a geographical and political entity for thousands of years while Pakistan is a newer 59 year old occurance.

veera8
10 Jul 06,, 08:30
Islam's fanatics are just part of recent history and a short one. People of other faith have caused a lot more destruction to temples.

is it so ???? :biggrin: take any part of history ,you will be inundated with evidences abt the brutality of islam ...the best example being your own country paksitan's native civilisation being brutally destroyed by the muslims


Your faith on the other hand is the one that's destroying more places of worship now than anyone.

i second that ..my faith hinduism doesnt have this kind of filthy pleasure of destroying some one's worshipping places and bulilding a temple on that place ...that kind of system is a trade mark of islam,but not hinduism


I thought India was a SECULAR land not your holy land
:biggrin: :biggrin: a person from a fanatic islamic nation is speaking abt a alien term called SECULARIM


why would you build Ram mandir where Ram wasn't even born?
pls enlighten us where RAM was born


Ayodhya is a big place, build it on the side
perhaps this advice would have fit much better with those muslim basatard invaders who built mosques on those demolished temples ...


But don't reward mobsters by building it over the site which they razed to the ground.
you can cry,whine ..what ever ....its our holy place ...we are not in need of any justification for bulding RAM temple in ayodhya ....
RAM TEMPLE WILL BE BULIT FOR SURE .....take that and rest in peace .....

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 09:00
Why does one "First of all" require that in a supreme court of India's case determining whether or not there' been a Ram Mandir on the site of the Babri Mosque which was demolished by a mob of Hindu fanatics in broad daylight taking several hours to do so without any intervention from the government bodies.

So many wrongs and you "first of all" see Muslims as terrorists?

The "first of all" is for bleeding hearts who bleat perpetually at the "wrongs" done to Moslems and not for any court.

The Supreme Court is being asked so that the bleeding hearts bleats can be assuaged and the votes clink its way into the ballot box.

The Babri Mazjid is a non issue blown out of proportion so that the bleeding heart votes overfill the ballot count! ;)

Interestingly, the Supreme Court is not asked a sausage when monuments of other religion are demolished or when the Moslem Personal Law is applied that casts asunder human rights or any social decency.

I don't see Moslems "first of all" as terrorists. They display themselves so in the international show-window for all to see, propped up by the "silent" Moslem majority!

I hope that answers your query.


Milli Gazette is an Indian paper.

Indeed.

As credible as Playboy commenting on Bush and the Iraq War! :rolleyes:


Islam's fanatics are just part of recent history and a short one.

Islamic fanaticism is legend in history and not a recent phenomenon.


People of other faith have caused a lot more destruction to temples

Really?

The European colonial past does not indicate that the Christians have become as lunatic as some barbarians who are egged on to destroy every other religion or its semblance so that they alone remain as the inheritors of the earth!

I believe it is said "The meek shall inherit the earth"!

Now here did I read that? ;)

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 09:17
My good man, please explain to us poor souls, what does "pre-Indian" times mean?
Does it mean when the dinosaurs lived? OR when Indians were descovering plastic surgery and the arab nomads were still grazing sheep?
The right term would be "pre-Pakistan times". India existed as a geographical and political entity for thousands of years while Pakistan is a newer 59 year old occurance.

Lemontree,

Your post reminds me of the adage - Casting pearls before swine.

Some are denied such essence of knowledge of existence IE. history or geography. The threads on the education of the "enlightened" neighbouring country carved out of India decidedly indicates that in the demonic desire to "reconstruct" history, they forget their lineage!

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 09:21
Im in favor of demolishing every mosque there is.
Whats so wrong about that?

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 09:25
Im in favor of demolishing every mosque there is.
Whats so wrong about that?

"Worms" will creep out of the stone work.

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 09:29
Well worms look better when squished.

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 09:56
Maggots ?

platinum786
10 Jul 06,, 10:26
asim u sem suprised by this all, this is another show of secular India, where even government ministers order draconian style burning of mulims in the name of ram or ganesh or whatever.

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 10:32
Yeah we burn muslims and India is all a show.
But they still dont seem to leave India in a mass exodus for muslim paradises like Pak and BD.
Instead their numbers just keep increasing.
Maybe they should all move to England. Then we can be grateful for another 3/7.

Jay
10 Jul 06,, 10:33
asim u sem suprised by this all, this is another show of secular India, where even government ministers order draconian style burning of mulims in the name of ram or ganesh or whatever.
Ofcourse, we yindoos and Indian govt are out there to get the muslims. Run and hide, we burn everything on our way.

May be you can hide in Pakistan, where Sunni's dont kill Shia's, Ahmedias are not persecuted, women get raped for foreign citizenship, hudood punished women are arrested but get bail, wait, the last one just happened and the military dictator claimed the one before that:biggrin:

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 10:36
Maggots ?
My biology isnt too great, but arent they those creepy crawlies that feed and breed on putrifying flesh before growing wings and transforming into flies?

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 10:39
Well this is what they look like :

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/images/250/instar_1a.jpg

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/images/250/instar_3.jpg

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/images/250/spiracle2.jpg
growing larvae.

Jay
10 Jul 06,, 10:47
damn, i googled for maggots and those are the pics I saw... :biggrin: :biggrin:

Captain Drunk
10 Jul 06,, 11:07
Im in favor of demolishing every mosque there is.
Whats so wrong about that?

But surely, you wouldn't mean......even the Taj Mahal lol?

lemontree
10 Jul 06,, 11:46
But surely, you wouldn't mean......even the Taj Mahal lol?
What are you drinking feni or orak?...its seems strong :biggrin: The Taj Mahal is not a mosque, but a grave. The complex has a small mosque on the western perimeter wall, where the body of Mumtaz Mahal was kept in a temporary grave till the Taj was being built.

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 13:16
umm.. if you know so much about ayodha i'd suspect you also know that the mosque is being guarded police and no fanatic is being allowed to come close to it.

India's supreme court as well as the central government both maintain the status quo policy
Gaurding rubble? Or what's left of it? Muslims want to see it reconstructed when all Hindu fanatical arguments have failed. And all Hindus involved with its demolition should be arrested.

platinum786
10 Jul 06,, 13:18
you guys again have proven me right, one the one hand you claim to be secular, then you want to demolish all mosques...

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 13:19
My good man, please explain to us poor souls, what does "pre-Indian" times mean?
Does it mean when the dinosaurs lived? OR when Indians were descovering plastic surgery and the arab nomads were still grazing sheep?
The right term would be "pre-Pakistan times". India existed as a geographical and political entity for thousands of years while Pakistan is a newer 59 year old occurance.
India was never there, it was just a few Hindu kingdoms of all kinds.

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 13:35
Yes its all true.
India is not secular.
Its is not a democracy.
Its ruled by a military dictator.
Courts here will hang you for Blasphemy.
Milligazette is credible because its muslim.

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 13:39
India was never there, it was just a few Hindu kingdoms of all kinds.
jealous haan? Gand jali?
LOL.
Just because Pak doesnt have a history dont drag us with you. It is a 5000 year old civilisation, not something created artificially in the last 50 years.

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 13:47
We have established the following :

India is not secular.
Its is not a democracy.
Its ruled by a military dictator.
Courts here will hang you for Blasphemy.
Milligazette is credible because its muslim.

Theres no way anyone can refute this, so lets just move on to more important things: MAGGOTS

Did you guys know that these nasty little things are actually used in medicine?
Isnt that interesting?

Rudraksh
10 Jul 06,, 13:53
Basically all what the hindu fanatics claimed about Ram's birthplace have been BS and just an excuse to demolish the 500 year old mosque.

Now do the right thing and rebuild a mosque on the site. At least it'd prevent any backlash from the Muslims this time.

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/01-15July05-Print-Edition/011507200533.htm

Asim, just a question and I hope I get an answer from you, specifically in yes/no. Have you read the article you posted thoroughly? I am just posting some excerpts from the article.

------------------------------------------------------------------

he contradicted his own statement made the previous day that Mohammad Ghauri and Shahabuddin Ghauri are two different persons. He said today (on 27 April) that both are the same person. He said that he had made a wrong statement because he had high blood pressure.

Again, contradicting his previous day’s statement he said that he had wrongly stated that Shahabuddin Ghauri had come to Ayodhya before 1192. He said that Shahabuddin Mohammad Ghauri had demolished only one Jain Mandir in Ayodhya and said that the allegation that he had destroyed all temples Ayodhya is wrong.

After seeing the British historian Neville’s book, he said that this is an important proof of history. He agreed with the writing in the book that at that time Kaushalya Bhawan of Ayodhya was itself considered the Janmabhoomi but he could not say how far is Kaushalya Bhawan from Babari Masjid.

Lawyers and audience in the court were intently listening to this witness though he was inconsistent. During cross examination he was roaming here and there and very often contradicted his own earlier statements.

During cross examination by Zafaryab Jilani earlier, he said that whatever he had said in reply to Jilani’s question he had come to know from his father.

Rectifying his earlier statement, he said that Sayed Salar Masood Ghazi of Bahraich was not Mahmood Ghaznavi’s nephew but his sister’s son.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think if you had time to read through the article you yourself posted, you would have realized how stupid the article really is. Btw, you tell us to do the "right" thing and rebuild the mosque on the site. Personally, I have no prob with that - but then again isn't it in the courts. So, how can you rebuild anything unless the dispute has been settled.

Rudraksh
10 Jul 06,, 14:00
People of other faith have caused a lot more destruction to temples. Your faith on the other hand is the one that's destroying more places of worship now than anyone.

I thought India was a SECULAR land not your holy land. And why would you build Ram mandir where Ram wasn't even born? Ayodhya is a big place, build it on the side. But don't reward mobsters by building it over the site which they razed to the ground.

Can we be more specific here with examples pls.

People of which other faith have caused more destruction to temples?

How is our faith destroying more places of worship now than anyone else?

India is our holy land - but we chose to be secular. Hindus believe Ram was born in Ayodhya. Its not for you to question that belief. The dispute is in the courts - let the courts decide.

Rudraksh
10 Jul 06,, 14:09
India was never there, it was just a few Hindu kingdoms of all kinds.

You mean the name "India" was never there rite? Coz if you mean there never was a geographically distinct chunk of land called India or Bharat or whatever else - then you couldn't be more wrong.

India was pretty much organized along its present boundaries for centuries. Perhaps, you could read up on Chandragupta or Ashoka and the land they ruled.

Yes, later on, that chunk got subdivided into kingdoms - so what.

India wasn't invented - if thats what you mean.

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 14:50
Asim,

This is the house that Jack built.

This is the cat
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the
crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the priest all shaven and shorn,
That married the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the **** that crowed in the morn,
That waked the priest all shaven and shorn,
That married the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the farmer sowing the corn,
That kept the the **** that crowed in the morn,
That waked the priest all shaven and shorn,
That married the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

Got the point?

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 14:56
India was never there, it was just a few Hindu kingdoms of all kinds.

Well, history was never a subject taught in Pakistan. If the threads in this forum on Pak education system is to be believed then Pakistan was busy "inventing" history. Therefore, history that you know is the "invented" one as declared by Pakistani commissions.

When Aga Khan tried to bring in modern education, you guys went berserk. (Again in the threads)

Therefore, it is understandable.

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 15:02
you guys again have proven me right, one the one hand you claim to be secular, then you want to demolish all mosques...

did you mean mosquitoes or mosques?

I don't recommend demoilishing mosques. It will ruin heritage. The heritage of various types and sizes of beard that flutter with gay abandon in the balmy summer breeze.

Such a beautiful sight if one is upwind! :tongue:

Karthik
10 Jul 06,, 18:13
If secularism was ever a cover for Islamic barbarity over other religions, then I'm afraid it wont happen in India.

Yes, I guess any Hindu can claim that it is his holy land, and that it is in Ayodhya. It is natural and it is his right.

I suppose one should give a rat's ass to pathetic 'ass-clowns' who think that seculariam should neccessarily mean Islamic dominance.

Ray
10 Jul 06,, 19:29
The ass clowns have been identified on this thread who have no clue what is secularism.

As I have stated some fools feel that dominance of one said religion means secularism!

There is no dominance. Each is equal.

But the Koran does not agree to this theory since Kaffirs have to be subjugated so that there is Dar ul Islam.

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 19:57
Asim, just a question and I hope I get an answer from you, specifically in yes/no. Have you read the article you posted thoroughly? I am just posting some excerpts from the article.

------------------------------------------------------------------

he contradicted his own statement made the previous day that Mohammad Ghauri and Shahabuddin Ghauri are two different persons. He said today (on 27 April) that both are the same person. He said that he had made a wrong statement because he had high blood pressure.

Again, contradicting his previous day’s statement he said that he had wrongly stated that Shahabuddin Ghauri had come to Ayodhya before 1192. He said that Shahabuddin Mohammad Ghauri had demolished only one Jain Mandir in Ayodhya and said that the allegation that he had destroyed all temples Ayodhya is wrong.

After seeing the British historian Neville’s book, he said that this is an important proof of history. He agreed with the writing in the book that at that time Kaushalya Bhawan of Ayodhya was itself considered the Janmabhoomi but he could not say how far is Kaushalya Bhawan from Babari Masjid.

Lawyers and audience in the court were intently listening to this witness though he was inconsistent. During cross examination he was roaming here and there and very often contradicted his own earlier statements.

During cross examination by Zafaryab Jilani earlier, he said that whatever he had said in reply to Jilani’s question he had come to know from his father.

Rectifying his earlier statement, he said that Sayed Salar Masood Ghazi of Bahraich was not Mahmood Ghaznavi’s nephew but his sister’s son.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think if you had time to read through the article you yourself posted, you would have realized how stupid the article really is. Btw, you tell us to do the "right" thing and rebuild the mosque on the site. Personally, I have no prob with that - but then again isn't it in the courts. So, how can you rebuild anything unless the dispute has been settled.
Yes Rudraksh. Hmmm I dunno what about, that you quoted makes this article bogus. The article is pointed out that the Hindu side's key witness was full of it. And kept changing his statements to some tough questioning by the Muslim side's lawyer.

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 19:59
Can we be more specific here with examples pls.

People of which other faith have caused more destruction to temples?

How is our faith destroying more places of worship now than anyone else?

India is our holy land - but we chose to be secular. Hindus believe Ram was born in Ayodhya. Its not for you to question that belief. The dispute is in the courts - let the courts decide.
Greeks, Christians, Pagans (vs Judaism).

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 20:00
If secularism was ever a cover for Islamic barbarity over other religions, then I'm afraid it wont happen in India.

Yes, I guess any Hindu can claim that it is his holy land, and that it is in Ayodhya. It is natural and it is his right.

I suppose one should give a rat's ass to pathetic 'ass-clowns' who think that seculariam should neccessarily mean Islamic dominance.
Hmmm what Islamic dominance? The Secular Supreme court is ruling in Islam's favor.

Samudra
10 Jul 06,, 20:02
The Secular Supreme court is ruling in Islam's favor.

Which ruling?

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 20:10
Which ruling?
continous tense. With the lack of evidence the Ram mandir argument should be thrown out.

platinum786
10 Jul 06,, 20:15
there you go, they want hindu republic, not a regualr republic, they just don't have the guts to say it, i can't see why, it's like they're ashamed of it or something.

for heavens sake india is the home of hinduism call it what you like, it's yours to call.

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 20:31
bah bah... yet India is still secular... I know you just want to ruin India's name... but on this board here, we have NON-HINDU Indians and quite patriotic I may add... tell me the number of non-muslim Pakistanis on this board??? :biggrin:

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 20:33
India is indeed secular on paper. Hindu fanatics don't accept it.

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 20:35
India is indeed secular on paper. Hindu fanatics don't accept it.
We dont.
Revoke all rights for muslims. Let them live in a muslim paradises next door.

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 20:38
India is indeed secular on paper. Hindu fanatics don't accept it.
yes it is secular on paper... thats is why the Prime Minister is not really a Sikh... but a Hindu i tell you.. and the Indian President is not a muslim but an Hindu also... seriously.. this was discovered by the Pakistani top secret spy agency ISI... :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 20:40
Go tell it to them. They might carve out another nation out of India. Name Ayodhya the capital :D

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 20:42
hehe... you'd like that... but then again... Indians aren't Pakistanis....

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 20:46
Go tell it to them. They might carve out another nation out of India.
Isnt that already called pakland/pakistan or something?
I vaguely recall something of the sort.

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 20:54
:biggrin: :biggrin:

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 20:54
Hmmm realistically I hope India can truly become secular and Pakistan can become secular. But if the treatment of Muslims continues, I hope more and more Muslim nations come forward to absorb Indian Muslims into their countries. Whichever ones that would want to.

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 20:55
Isnt that already called pakland/pakistan or something?
I vaguely recall something of the sort.
One more.

OrdinaryGuy
10 Jul 06,, 21:06
Hmmm realistically I hope India can truly become secular and Pakistan can become secular. But if the treatment of Muslims continues, I hope more and more Muslim nations come forward to absorb Indian Muslims into their countries. Whichever ones that would want to.

Yes.. and I do hope there are many more secular countries like India or in the west to let poor muslim women and shia muslims in pakistan that are being persecuted and murdered to live safely in...

OrdinaryGuy
10 Jul 06,, 21:07
One more.

east pakistan??
yep that was a further subdivision of India :biggrin: :biggrin:

another one coming soon i think.. balochistan?

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 21:09
One more.
Like Bangladesh?
But didnt that be a part of a muslim paradise? I read about some war or something in the early seventies?

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 21:10
Damn OG,
you beat me to it this time.

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 21:21
Hmmm realistically I hope India can truly become secular and Pakistan can become secular. But if the treatment of Muslims continues, I hope more and more Muslim nations come forward to absorb Indian Muslims into their countries. Whichever ones that would want to.
lol... oh please... when it comes to muslims... you can never be treated right... no matter how much the government sucks up to your demands... most of the world is secular but when it comes to muslims... no country in the world is secular enough for you guys... gimme a break...

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 21:38
The one with Ayodhya as its capital. C'mon give me some credit, I could've also said New Delhi. But I was being realistic.

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 21:42
lol.... I don't get it... why do you want to embarass yourself and your country even more???

Monte
10 Jul 06,, 21:59
Revoke all rights for muslims. Let them live in a muslim paradises next door.

I cannot agree with u here. India is secular constitutionally. U cannot revoke some community's/religion's right. Remember we have more Muslim brothers here in India than the whole population of Pakistan. Here, Muslims, except those misguided by the same are true Indians, patriotic and nationalistic. Name them - Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc., etc., all have equal right here. All the Muslim population we have here are more than enough to kick someone's (really someone's) a$$ ;) And we are proud of it.

OrdinaryGuy
10 Jul 06,, 22:03
I cannot agree with u here. India is secular constitutionally. U cannot revoke some community's/religion's right. Remember we have more Muslim brothers here in India than the whole population of Pakistan. Here, Muslims, except those misguided by the same are true Indians, patriotic and nationalistic. Name them - Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc., etc., all have equal right here. All the Muslim population we have here are more than enough to kick someone's (really someone's) a$$ ;)

Vaman was joking of course :)

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 22:09
The one with Ayodhya as its capital. C'mon give me some credit, I could've also said New Delhi. But I was being realistic.
Realistic?
Like Mughalistan then?


MUGHALSTAN is the Muslim response to Hindu Rashtra. Envisaging an united Islamic homeland stretching from Sind to Bengal via Kashmir, it is the very antithesis of Hindutva. No, we Muslims are not going to go to Pakistan as the Brahmins command. Instead we will break India once more and re-unite with our brethren in Pakistan and Bangladesh to form the greatest nation of the world - Mughalstan, "The Land of Mughal-Muslims" . Mughalstan is "Greater Pakistan", or "Pakistan No. 2". In other words, Mughalstan is "India's Bosnia" - a nation within a nation. Mughalstan will Inshallah consist of the following coterminous territories :

* PAKISTAN comprising Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Sindh.
* BANGISTAN or Greater Bangladesh, comprising modern Bangladesh, southern Assam and the surrounding Muslim-dominated regions.
* KHALISTAN, the Sikh Nation of Sufi Muslims. The Sikhs or Nanakshahis are followers of the Muslim Sufi saint Nanak Shah; hence Khalistan is a natural part of Mughalstan.
* ROHILSTAN, northern Uttar Pradesh or `Rohilkhand', with a 60 % Muslim population.
* MALWASTAN or Malwa in Madhya Pradesh.
* BIHARISTAN comprising the Muslim-dominated regions formerly known as `Magadha' in southern Bihar, and of course.
* KASHMIR, the Crown of Mughalstan.

Each of these regions individually possesses Mughal-Muslim population exceeding 50 %, and hence these regions justifiably belong to Islamic Mughalstan instead of Brahmin-Occupied Hindu Rashtra. The following is a map of Mughalstan -

MAP OF MUGHALSTAN

The population of the resulting Mughalstan homeland is obtained by adding the Muslim populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh and North India, and subtracting the populations for Brahmavarta, Rajputana, Bhojpur and Brahuiland, which are envisaged independant ethnic nations. Using the latest population figures, one obtains

* 70 % Mughal-Muslim
* 3 % Vaidik-Brahmins
* 5 % Vaishya-Vaishnavite
* 15 % Sudroid-Shaivite
* 5 % Rajput-Saura
* 2 % Portuguese-Christian and others.

Since 70 % of Mughalstan's population is Muslim, Mughalstan belongs to us by birthright. The term `Mughal-Muslim' is analogous to the conventional ethnographic terms `Anglo-Saxon Protestant', `Sinhala-Buddhist' or `Russian-Orthodox'. Since each of these peoples have independant nations, it follows that the Mughal-Muslims deserve a homeland as well. Moreover, the creation of Islamic Mughalstan shall pave the way for the creation of Dravida Nadu in South India and Hindutva based states in Central India around Maharashtra.

This Mughalstan is the homeland for the dominant Urdu-speaking Muslims of the North who are mainly descendants of immigrant Muslims and have been historically referred to as `Mughals'. The Muslims of Southern India, however, are mostly Naumuslims or converts and do not speak Urdu as a mother tongue. Thus, the following Naumuslim states may be established in addition to Mughalstan -

* Nizamistan comprising the regions around Hyderabad for the `Dakhini Muslims',
* Moplahstan situated on the Malabar coast for the Moplahs,
* Nasaristan for Sri Lankan Moors.

Yes, the Mughal Muslims will rise.

Mirza Qutb
Islamic Mughalstan Zindabad !
Long Live the Mughal-Muslim Race !
Hezb-e-Mughalstan
http://www.dalitstan.org/mughalstan/


http://www.dalitstan.org/mughalstan/

Monte
10 Jul 06,, 22:09
Vaman was joking of course :)

Gee.... Let them check the list of gallantary medal winners of the Indian armed forces :)

Monte
10 Jul 06,, 22:14
Oh dear :eek: Omg!!

Tronic
10 Jul 06,, 22:16
lol... nice fabrication...

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 22:21
Dont knock it.
Knowing these guys, they probably go to sleep praying for Mughalistan or nuking India.

Asim Aquil
10 Jul 06,, 22:36
If that's true that prayer's being echoed by about 200 million people from your country.

Vaman
10 Jul 06,, 22:55
Good.
Lets see if theres a Allah.

TopHatter
11 Jul 06,, 01:34
jealous haan? Gand jali?
I'm sorry, would you mind providing a translation for those words and do so in the future as well if you intend to post something not in English? Thanks.

gilgamesh
11 Jul 06,, 03:37
I'm sorry, would you mind providing a translation for those words and do so in the future as well if you intend to post something not in English? Thanks.

translation:

"Jealous, huh? For, Gandhi has gone to jail for y'all?"

Tronic
11 Jul 06,, 04:50
lol...

Ray
11 Jul 06,, 04:53
India is indeed secular on paper. Hindu fanatics don't accept it.

I wonder why India being secular or otherwise should worry your pretty head. You don't live in India.

Does it worry anyone if the Fijian army ceremonial dress has a SD coat with a kilt-like lower part? It would if one had to wear it not being a Fijian, but otherwise, who cares?

If one's country is a rabid intolerant single religion supreme entity, it does rankle as to why someone should have a secular non religion supreme country.

This would rankle any human being's subconscious because every human being, in his heart of hearts, he knows that all men are born equal and when his country believes otherwise, it appears subhuman (nonhuman). Hence the contrition.

Schizophrenia overtakes such a subconscious.

Is Asim gripped by this malady!

I have wondered very hard as to what is the aim behind this thread. The above explanation is possibly the rationale.

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 05:09
Basically all what the hindu fanatics claimed about Ram's birthplace have been BS and just an excuse to demolish the 500 year old mosque.



http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/01-15July05-Print-Edition/011507200533.htm


LOL. Milligazette! Why dont you quote Hamas on what the Palestinian issue is all about.



Now do the right thing and rebuild a mosque on the site. At least it'd prevent any backlash from the Muslims this time.

As if any Indian, Muslim otherwise gives a flying f*ck what Asim says. :biggrin:

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 05:11
Evidence or no evidence....build the temple to compensate for the thousands of temples destroyed by the mughals.

Hellllloooooooooooooooooooo!!

Thats discrimination!!

Y'see true mussulmans are allowed to do all that...when them nasty zionist pigs, indoo infidels, or christian crusaders push back.....!!! Not allowed!

:cool:

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 05:28
Waaaaaaat?

So the Indian government's policy is going to be to take out what the Mughals did (in Pre-Indian times) on its Indian Muslim citizens?

Nope. What the Sultans did as well. Delhi & Deccan. The Moghuls were latecomers to the game. What the Ghauris and Ghaznavis did as well.
What the Pakistanis did after 1947 as well.

Please give the propoganda a break Asim.


Milli Gazette is an Indian paper.

Nice b0ll0cks. But this is pretty much on the lines of you trying to pass off a letter to an editor as an article...nice slant here...but Milli Gazette is an Islamic mouthpiece. Its bias and open advocacy of a hard line position, plus dubious reportage are well known.


Islam's fanatics are just part of recent history and a short one. People of other faith have caused a lot more destruction to temples. Your faith on the other hand is the one that's destroying more places of worship now than anyone.

More revisionist b0ll0cks. I mean dont you get tired of purveying bovine faecal matter 24/7? Whom are you trying to fool here?

Barely a few hours from my hometown is a historic Buddhist monument, defaced by Islamic pillagers. All the Buddhas gone, heads chopped off, defaced icons...not to mention the umpteen historical records of temples destroyed by Muslims across India throughout their brutal history..

Please dont try to paint a very noble picture of Islam and its attitude towards other religions...heck the Sikhs became the Khalsa ie warriors thanks to the brutality of Islamic zealots against a hitherto peaceful religion..


asim u sem suprised by this all, this is another show of secular India, where even government ministers order draconian style burning of mulims in the name of ram or ganesh or whatever.

Gee, the horror of it all...to truly advance they should behead people in a civilized manner reminiscent of Mohammad or whatever...

Man, draw a few cartoons and get them civilized easter bunnies up and dancing..

We got secular Pakistan to learn from.. "how to molest/ kill fellow Muslims" 101..truly secular onlee.


Gaurding rubble? Or what's left of it? Muslims want to see it reconstructed when all Hindu fanatical arguments have failed. And all Hindus involved with its demolition should be arrested.

Keep wanting. Expecting the wishes of one fanatic attempting to speak for every Muslim to be considered is rather pointless...


India was never there, it was just a few Hindu kingdoms of all kinds.

Yup...keep dreaming...the term Bharat has a historical connotation. Mores the pity.


there you go, they want hindu republic, not a regualr republic, they just don't have the guts to say it, i can't see why, it's like they're ashamed of it or something.

for heavens sake india is the home of hinduism call it what you like, it's yours to call.

Gee, the day something like that happens, the entire Pakistani community is going to sit around wailing and beating their chest, here & elsewhere. For that sake itself, we'll demur. ;)


India is indeed secular on paper. Hindu fanatics don't accept it.

The board should have an icon for whining.


Go tell it to them. They might carve out another nation out of India. Name Ayodhya the capital :D

Oi Ve! What a day has come! Asim & co now need to dream of a Hindu empire. Dont worry boys, good old secular India is 'nuff for y'all.


Hmmm realistically I hope India can truly become secular and Pakistan can become secular. But if the treatment of Muslims continues, I hope more and more Muslim nations come forward to absorb Indian Muslims into their countries. Whichever ones that would want to.

Provided Indian Muslims want to go into aforesaid countries, which one severely doubts. They are rather finicky and dont want to end up where they are murdered because they are Shia or Sunni or Ahmediya or Bohra Shia or Barelvi. :)

Right now Pakistan & most Muslim countries cant take care of their own Muslims...and here we have you.. :rolleyes:

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 05:42
The ass clowns have been identified on this thread who have no clue what is secularism.

As I have stated some fools feel that dominance of one said religion means secularism!

There is no dominance. Each is equal.

But the Koran does not agree to this theory since Kaffirs have to be subjugated so that there is Dar ul Islam.

In all seriousness.

Has there been even one Muslim leader or important personality who has stepped up & said, as a mark of reconciliation (on the lines of how SAfricans have faced their bloody history of Apartheid), who has said that Muslims would return even a few highly notable Hindu sites seized/ destroyed by Islamic conquerors as a mark of reconciliation?

That they would support their Hindu / Sikh brothers & sisters in such an endeavour?

I know of dozens of Hindus who have offered to give up a claim on Ayodhya just for the sake of communal harmony.

In contrast, the silence from mainstream Muslim leaders has been remarkable.

The Sunni Wakf Board or the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the two organizations doing all the representation of Indian Muslims will not even entertain such an idea per a report.

Such is the state of things.

What is yours is mine. What is mine is mine as well.

With such an attitude displayed by the Muslim community, its not at all surprising to see even the mildest Milquetoast refuse to back down over such hot button issues.

Ray
11 Jul 06,, 06:03
Can Leopards change their spots?

But these are sham Leopards with permanent ink spots.

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 06:15
Babri Masjid & what an Islamic scholar said...& then had his words disappear..


Hideaway Communalism

Indian Express
February 5, 1989

A case in which the English version of a major book by a renowned Muslim scholar, the fourth Rector of one of the greatest centers of Islamic learning in India, listing some of the mosques, including the Babri Masjid, which were built on the sites and foundations of temples, using their stones and structures, is found to have the tell-tale passages censored out.


The book is said to have become difficult to get.

It is traced: And it is found to have been commended just 15 years ago by the most influential Muslim scholar of our country today, the current Rector of the great center of Islamic learning, and the Chairman of the Muslim Personal Law Board.


Evasion, concealment have become a national habit. And they have terrible consequences. But first I must give you some background. The National Ulama of Lucknow is one of the principal centers of Islamic learning in India. It was founded in 1894. It ranks today next only to the Darul-Ulum at Deoband. The government publication, Centers of Islamic Learning in India, recalls how the founders "aimed at producing capable scholars who could project a true image of Islam before the modern world in an effective way'; it recalls how "Towards fulfilling its avowed aim in the matter of educational reform, it (the group) decided to establish an ideal educational institution which would not only provide education in religious and temporal sciences but also offer technical training"; it recalls how "It (Nadwa) stands out today -- with its college, a vast and rich library and Research and Publication Departments housed in fine buildings -- as one of the most outstanding institutions for imparting instruction in the Islamic Sciences"; it recalls how "A salient feature of this institution is its emphasis on independent research"; it recalls how "The library of the Nadwa, housed in the central hall and the surrounding rooms of the main building, is, with more than 75,000 titles including about 3,000 handwritten books mostly in Arabic and also in Persian, Urdu, English etc., one of the finest libraries of the sub-continent". That was written 10 years ago. The library now has 125,000 books.

Its Head

Today the institution is headed by Maulana Abdul-Hasan Ali Nadwi. Ali Mian, as he is known to one and all, is almost without any doubt the most influential Muslim teacher and figure today -- among the laity, in government circles, and among scholars and governments abroad.


He was among the founders of Jamaat-e-Islami, the fundamentalist organization; but because of differences with Maulana Maudoodi, he left soon. Today he is the chairman of the Muslim Personal Law Board. He is a founder member of the Raabta Alam-e-Islami, the Pan-Islamic body with headquarters in Mecca, which decides among other things the amounts that different Islamic organizations the world over should receive. He has been the Nazim, that is the Rector, of the Darul-Ulum Nadwatul-Ualama since 1961, that is for well over a quarter of a century. The Nadwa owns not a small part of its eminence to the scholarship, the exertions, the national and international contacts of Ali Mian.


Politicians of all hues -- Rajiv Gandhi, V P Singh, Chandrasekhar seek him out. He is the author of several books, including the well known Insani Duniya Par Musalmanon Ke Uruj-Zaval Ka Asar (The Impact of the Rise and Fall of Muslims on Mankind), and is taken as the authority on Islamic law, jurisprudence, theology, and specially history. And he has great, in fact decisive, influence on the politics of Muslims in India.

His Father and His Book

His father, Maulana Hakim Sayed Abdul Hai, was an equally well known and influential figure. When the Nadwa was founded, the first Rector, Maulana Muhammed Monghyri, the scholar at whose initiative the original meeting in 1892 which led to establishment of the Nadwa was called, had chosen Maulana Abdul Hai as the Madagar Nazim, the additional Rector. Abdul Hai served in that capacity till July 1915 when he was appointed the Rector. Because of his scholarship and his services to the institution and to Islam, he was reappointed as the Rector in 1920. He continued in that post till his death in February 1923. He too wrote several books, including a famous directory which has just been republished from Hyderabad, of thousands of Muslims who had served the cause of Islam in India, chiefly by the numbers they had converted to the faith.


During some work, I came across the reference to a book of his and began to look for it. It was a long, discursive book, I learnt, which began with descriptions of geography, flora and fauna, languages, people and regions of India. These were written for Arabic speaking people, the book having been written in Arabic.


In 1972, I learnt, the Nadwatul-Ulama had the book translated into Urdu and published the most important chapters of the book under the title Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein ("Hindustan Under Islamic Rule"). Ali Mian, I was told, had himself written the foreword in which he had commended the book most highly. The book as published had left out description of geography etc, on the premise that facts about these are well known to Indian readers.

A Sudden Reluctance

A curious fact hit me in the face. Many of the persons who one would have normally expected to be knowledgeable about such publications were suddenly reluctant to recall this book. I was told, in fact, that copies of the book had been removed, for instance from the Aligarh Muslim University Library. Some even suggested that a determined effort had been made three or four years ago to get back each and every copy of this book.


Fortunately the suggestion turned out to be untrue. While some of the libraries one would normally expect to have the book -- the Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi; the famous libraries in Hyderabad -- those of the Dairutual Maarifal-Osmania, of the Salar Jung Museum, of the Nizam's Trust, of the Osmania University, the Kutubkhana-I-Saidiya -- did not have it, others did. Among the latter were the Nadwa's library itself, the justly famous Khuda Baksh Library in Patna, that of the Institute of Islamic Studies in Delhi.


The fact that the book was available in all these libraries came as a great reassurance. I felt that if reactionaries and propagandists have become so well organized that they can secure disappearance from every library of a book they have come not to like, we are in deep trouble. Clearly they were not that respectful. The fact that, contrary to what I had been told, the book was available also taught me another reassuring thing: factional fights among Muslim fundamentalists are as sharp and intense as are the factional fights among fundamentalists of other hues. For the suggestion of there being something sinister in the inaccessibility of the book had come to me from responsible Muslim quarters.


'This valuable gift, this historical testament'

The book is the publication number 66 of the Majlis Tehqiqat wa Nashriat Islam, the publication house of the Nadwatul-Ulama, Lucknow. The Arabic version was published in 1972 in Hyderabad, the Urdu version in 1973 in Lucknow. An English version was published in 1977. I will use the Urdu version as the illustration. Maulana Abdul-Hasan Ali Nadwi, that is Ali Mian himself contributes the foreword. It is an eloquent, almost lyrical foreword.


Islam has imbued its followers with the quest for truth, with patriotism, he writes. Their nature, their culture has made Muslims the writers of true history, he writes. Muslims had but to reach a country, he writes, and its fortunes lit up and it awakened from the slumber of hundreds an thousands of years. The country thereby ascended from darkness to light, he writes, from oblivion and obscurity to the pinnacle of name and fame. Leaving its parochial ambit, he writes, it joined the family of man, it joined the wide and vast creation of God. And the luminescence of Islam, he writes, transformed its hidden treasure into the light of eyes. It did not suck away the wealth of the country, he writes, and vomit it elsewhere as western powers did. On the contrary, it brought sophistication, culture, beneficent administration, peace, tranquility to the country. It raised the country from the age of savagery to the age of progress, he writes, from infantilism to adulthood. It transformed its barren lands into swaying fields, he writes, its wild shrubs into fruit-laden trees of such munificence that the residents could not even have dreamt of them.


And so on.


He then recalls that the vast learning and prodigious exertions of Maulana Abdul Hai, his 8-volume work on 4500 Muslims who served the cause of Islam in India, his directory of Islamic scholars. He recalls how after completing these books the Maulana turned to subjects which had till then remained obscure, how in these labors the Maulana was like the proverbial bee collecting honey from varied flowers. He recounts the wide range of the Mualana's scholarship. He recounts how the latter collected rare data, how a person like him accomplished single-handed what entire academics are unable these days to do.


He recounts the structure of the present book. He recalls how it lay neglected for long, how, even as the work of retranscribing a moth-eaten manuscript was going on, a complete manuscript was discovered in Azamgarh, how in 1933 the grace of Providence saved it from destruction and obscurity.


He writes that the book brings into bold relief those hallmarks of Islamic rule which have been unjustly and untruthfully dealt with by western and Indian historians, which in fact many Muslim historians and scholars in universities and academics too have treated with neglect and lack of appreciation.


Recalling how Maulana Abdul Hai had to study thousands of pages on a subject, Ali Mian says that only he who has himself worked on the subject can appreciate the effort that has gone into the study. You will get in a single chapter of this book, he tells the reader, the essence which you cannot obtain by reading scores of books. This is the result, he writes, of the fact that the author labored only for the pleasure of the God, for the service of the learning, and the fulfillment of his own soul. Such authors expected no rewards, no applause, he tells us. Work has their entire satisfaction. That is how they were able to put in such Herculean labors, to spend their entire life on one subject. We are immensely pleased, he concludes, to present this valuable gift and historical testament to our countrymen and hope that Allah will accept this act of service and scholars will also receive it with respect and approbation.

The Explanation

Such being the eminence of the author, such being the greatness of the work, why is it not the cynosure of the fundamentalists' eyes ?


The answer is in the chapter "Hindustan ki Masjidein" , The Mosques of Hindustan (India).


Barely seventeen pages; the chapter is simply written. A few facts about some of the principal mosques are described in a few lines each.


The facts are well-known, they are elementary, and setting them out in few lines each should attract no attention. And yet as we shall see, there is a furtiveness in regard to them. Why? Descriptions of seven mosques provide the answer.


The devout constructed so many mosques, Maulana Abdul Hai records, they lavished such huge amounts and such labors on them that they cannot be all reckoned, that every city, town, hamlet came to be adorned by a mosque. He says that he will therefore have to be content with setting out the facts of just a few of the well-known ones.


A few sentences from what he says about mosques will do:

Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at Delhi

"According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al-Islam which, it is said, Qutub-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592, he started building, under orders from Shihabuddin Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque. After that, when Shamsud-Din Altamish became the king, he built, on both sides of it, edifices of white stones, and on one side of it he started constructing the loftiest of all towers which has no equal in the world for its beauty and strength."

The Mosque at Jaunpur

"This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiseled stones. Originally, it was a Hindu temple after 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 Shihbud-Din gave lessons in it"

The Mosque at Kanauj

"This mosque stands on an elevated ground inside the Fort of Kanauj. It is well-known that it was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple (that stood) here. It is a beautiful mosque. They say that it was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar. "

The Jami Mosque at Etawah

"This mosque stands on the bank of the Jamuna at Etawah. There was a Hindu temple at this place, on the site of which this mosque was constructed. It is also patterned after the mosque at Kanauj. Probably it is one of the monuments of the Sharqi Sultans."

Babri Masjid at Ayodhya

"This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ayodhya which Hindus call the birth place of Ramchandraji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said 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 "

Mosques of Aalamgir Aurangzeb

"It is said that the mosque of Benares was built by Alamgir on the site of Vishweshwar Temple. That temple was very tall and held as holy among the Hindus. On this very site and with those very stones he constructed a lofty mosque, and its ancient stones were rearranged after being embedded in the walls of the mosque. It is one of the renowned mosques of Hindustan. The second mosque at Beneras is the one which was built by Alamgir on the bank of Ganga with chiseled stones. This also is a renowned mosque of Hindustan. It has 28 towers, each of which is 238 feet tall. This is on the bank of the Ganga and its foundations extend to the depth of the waters. Alamgir built mosque at Mathura. It is said that this mosque was built on the site of the Gobind Dev Temple which was very strong and beautiful as well as exquisite"

"It is said"

But the Maulana is not testifying to the facts. He is merely reporting what was believed. He repeatedly says, "It is said that".


That seems to be a figure of speech with the Maulana. When describing the construction of the Quwwatul Islam mosque by Qutubuddin Aibak, for instance he uses the same "It is said".


If the facts were in doubt, would a scholar of Ali Mian's diligence and commitment not have commented on them in his fullbodied foreword? Indeed, he would have decided against republishing them as he decided not to republish much of the original book.


And if the scholars had felt that the passages could be that easily disposed of, why should any effort have been made to take a work to the excellence of which a scholar of Ali Mian's stature has testified in such a fullsome manner, and what has been done to this one? And what is that?


Each reference to each of these mosques having been constructed on the sites of temples with, as in the case of Benaras, the stones of the very temples which were demolished for that very purpose have been censored out of the English version of the book ! Each one of the passages on each one of the seven mosques!


Indeed there is not just censorship but substitution. In the Urdu volume we are told in regard to the mosque at Kanauj for instance that "This mosque stands on an elevated ground inside the fort of Kanauj. It is well known that it was built on the foundation of some Hindu temple that stood here." In the English version we are told in regard to the same mosque that "It occupied a commanding site, believed to have been the place earlier occupied by an old and decayed fort".


If the passages could have been explained away by referring to the "It is said", why would anyone have thought it necessary to remove these passages from the English version -- that is the version which is likely to be read by persons other than the faithful? Why would anyone bowdlerize the book of a major scholar in this way?

Conclusions

But that, though obvious, weighs little with me. The fact that temples were broken and mosques constructed in their place is well known. Nor is the fact that the materials of the temples -- the stones and the idols -- were used in constructing the mosque, news. It was thought that this was the way to announce hegemony. It was thought that this was the way to strike at the heart of the conquered -- for in those days the temple was not just a place of worship; it was the hub of the community's life, of its learning, of its social life. So the lines in the book which bear on this practice are of no earth-shaking significance in themselves. Their real significance -- and I dare say that they are but the smallest, most innocuous example that one can think of on the mosque-temple business -- lies in the evasion and concealment they have spurred. I have it on good authority that the passages have been known for long, and well known to those who have been stoking the Babri Masjid issue.


(Several other modern Muslim historians and epigraphists accept that the fact that many other mosques including the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya stand on the sites of Hindu temples.)


That is the significant thing; they have known them, and their impulse has been to conceal and bury rather than to ascertain the truth.


I have little doubt that a rational solution can be found for the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi tangle, a solution which will respect the sentiments, the essentials, of the religions of all.


But no solution can be devised if the issue is going to be made the occasion for a show of strength by either side, if it is going to be converted into a symbol for establishing who shall prevail.


The fate of Maulana Abdul Hai's passages -- and I do not know whether the Urdu version itself was not a conveniently sanitized version of the original Arabic Volume -- illustrates the cynical manner in which those who spoke the passions of religion to further their politics are going about the matter.


Those who proceed by such cynical calculations sow havoc for all of us, for Muslims, for Hindus, for all. Those who remain silent in the face of such cynicism, such calculations help them sow the havoc.


Will we shed our evasions and concealment? Will we at last learn to speak and face the whole truth? To see how communalism of one side justifies and stokes that of the other? To see that these "leaders" are not interested in facts, not in the religion, not in a building or a site, but in power, in their personal power, and in that alone? That for them religion is but an instrument, an instrument which is so attractive because the costs of wielding it fall on others, on their followers, and not on them?


Will we never call a halt to them?

Confed999
11 Jul 06,, 06:23
LOL. Milligazette! Why dont you quote Hamas on what the Palestinian issue is all about.
Go read his posts about that issue. ;)

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 06:34
The one where he calls it an Indian paper & hence automatically correct & just etc? ;)

By the same standards, I should post what the Communist Party of India (Marxist) rant...err write about the Godless capitalists who run about India's economic policies, as a fair & balanced critique. :)

Edited for typo

Thick fingers, ouch!

Confed999
11 Jul 06,, 06:35
The one where he calls it an Indian paper? ;)
Hey, just shows the level of freedom you guys have.

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 06:39
True. They have a right to say what they want to.

Only problem I find with hardline positions is how they are still keeping their community in the dark via a sense of victimhood, with no historical & modern day context (wrt what their own leaders have done), or even preaching a middle path.

Confed999
11 Jul 06,, 06:41
Only problem I find with hardline positions is how they are still keeping their community in the dark via a sense of victimhood, with no historical & modern day context (wrt what their own leaders have done), or even preaching a middle path.
It's easiest to be a victim, you get to blame everything on someone else.

bull
11 Jul 06,, 07:50
you guys again have proven me right, one the one hand you claim to be secular, then you want to demolish all mosques...

You unearthed it all.....smart guy.

But i was wondering, why do the population of muslim grow still India???They wont give up fu.king even when they are slaughtered ..right??

veera8
11 Jul 06,, 10:15
you guys again have proven me right, one the one hand you claim to be secular, then you want to demolish all mosques

can any one clarify my doubts
1) how come muslims have a habit of screaming abt secularism when they are in MINORITY and when they become MAJORITY (by rampant breeding) they start a blood bath fighting for a separate islamic country to implement islamic sharih rules and break up the country ??????? :mad:
2) why is that majority of muslim country are islamic republic's where minority are ruthlessly persecuted and constantly intimated to get either converted to islam or kiss death ..but on the other hand muslims demand all other countries to be secular ?????? :confused:
3) how come muslims like platinum and asim call for seculariism ,with they themselves come from hardcore muslim fanatic countries ,where minority are less than 2 % :rolleyes:

any one care to answer my doubts ......

Asim Aquil
11 Jul 06,, 12:17
translation:

"Jealous, huh? For, Gandhi has gone to jail for y'all?"
so Gand is short for Gandhi? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Man Indians' poor grasp on Hindi rocks! Hey he said it not me.

Asim Aquil
11 Jul 06,, 12:19
It's easiest to be a victim, you get to blame everything on someone else.
Only difference being only 4 years ago thousands of Muslims were killed on Indian streets by Hindus. Burnt, raped, diced... This ain't made up.

Vaman
11 Jul 06,, 12:45
why should muslims deserve any better?

percentage_plyr
11 Jul 06,, 12:58
Only difference being only 4 years ago thousands of Muslims were killed on Indian streets by Hindus. Burnt, raped, diced... This ain't made up.

yea??

all lies.

show me photos.....satellite or ordinary(preferable up close ones).

dont care if there werent any cameras in those times.

i"ll only believe when i see the pics. :tongue:

667medic
11 Jul 06,, 13:00
yea??

all lies.

show me photos.....satellite or ordinary(preferable up close ones).

dont care if there werent any cameras in those times.

i"ll only believe when i see the pics. :tongue:
There are indeed photos of the victims but I don't think there are photos which actually show the people getting killed.....

bull
11 Jul 06,, 14:55
Only difference being only 4 years ago thousands of Muslims were killed on Indian streets by Hindus. Burnt, raped, diced... This ain't made up.


Hindus too died.
So?

There are many others who die in india due to accidents,disease and hunger.Are you going to spend your time pondering over that.

Muslims in India are the ones who decided volunatrily to be a part of a secular society and they are right now very much a part of it.

gilgamesh
11 Jul 06,, 15:37
Only difference being only 4 years ago thousands of Muslims were killed on Indian streets by Hindus. Burnt, raped, diced... This ain't made up.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=46538


'Post-Godhra toll: 254 Hindus, 790 Muslims'

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 1345 hours IST
Updated: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 1354 hours IST

New Delhi, May 11: The government on Wednesday informed the Rajya Sabha that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed in Gujarat in the post Godhra riots of 2002.



Stating this in a written reply, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal said a total of 223 people were reported missing, 2,548 sustained injuries, 919 were rendered widows and 606 children were orphaned during the riots.

He said an amount of Rs 1.5 lakh was paid by the government to the next of kin of each person killed and Rs 5,000, Rs 15,000, Rs 25,000 and Rs 50,000 to those injured up to 10 30, 40 and 50 per cent respectively.

In addition, he said relief was also extended by the state government to the victims of the riots under the heads of cash doles and assistance for household kits, foodgrains to Below Poverty Line (BPL) families in affected areas, housing assistance, rebuilding earning assets, rehabilitation of small business, assistance to indusries/shop and hotel and so on.

The state government, he said has informed that a total of Rs 204.62 crore has been incurred by it towards relief and rehabilitation measures. The Gujarat government has also informed that they had published the data as recommended by the NHRC, he added.

Ray
11 Jul 06,, 15:59
The dubious procreations of the Mosalem marauders seems to be at it again.

There have been blasts in Srinagar and killings and thereafter five simulataneous blasts in Mumbai with more mayhem.

And the religion is of peace!

Karthik
11 Jul 06,, 18:29
There exists no evidence that today's Islam is a religion of peace.

Those who claim that it being hijacked by a group of self-serving extremists are flat wrong.

Because, I dont see any moderates at all. Either one quietly approves of the current bloodshed in the name of Islam or on the hand, do nothing.

How many Mullah's till date have come out openly and denounced the terrorist carnages taking place all over the world?

As an aside, what interests them more is Sania Mirza's tennis outfits. :rolleyes:

Ray
11 Jul 06,, 18:36
so Gand is short for Gandhi? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Man Indians' poor grasp on Hindi rocks! Hey he said it not me.

I think it maybe short for Asim.

My HIndi also rocks!

Archer
11 Jul 06,, 19:38
Can this thread be locked? The creator is gone. Its purpose he made clear as well.

It will just keep bloating as replies to his comments get posted

TopHatter
11 Jul 06,, 19:41
Can this thread be locked? The creator is gone. Its purpose he made clear as well.

It will just keep bloating as replies to his comments get posted
Very good point.