JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ on September 22, 2010, 01:52:59 AM
-
(http://hinduexistence.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/save-ayodhya.jpg)
LUCKNOW, India — India has ramped up security ahead of a high court ruling Friday on a bitter religious dispute responsible for some of the bloodiest sectarian violence since independence.
The decision on the future of the Ayodhya mosque site -- and even more so the reaction to it -- poses a crucial test for India and its image as an emerging global player and a beacon of stability in a volatile region.
"The way the country handles this -- the aftermath -- will have a profound impact on the evolution of our country," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said earlier this month.
In 1992 the demolition of the 16th-century Babri Mosque in Ayodhya by Hindu activists sparked riots that killed more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, and propelled India's Hindu nationalists into the political mainstream.
Hindus say the mosque had been built by the Moghul emperor Babur on the site of a temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu warrior G-d Ram.
Ever since the destruction of the mosque 18 years ago the 47-acre (19-hectare) site has been cordoned off with barbed wire and steel fencing and guarded by troops.
Now a three-judge bench in the state capital Lucknow will rule on ownership of the site between Hindu and Muslim groups after rejecting an appeal last week to defer the tinderbox verdict.
Paramilitary troops are already out in force in northern Uttar Pradesh state.
"We now wait for Friday's verdict but no one should celebrate victory or raise protests against the ruling," said Zafaryab Jilani, lawyer for the Babri Masjid Action Committee, which wants the site handed to Muslims, India's largest religious minority.
The government and numerous religious leaders have urged both Hindus and Muslims to accept the court ruling, no matter which way it goes.
"The government appeals to all sections of society to maintain peace and order after the delivery of the judgement," Information Minister Ambika Soni said last week.
The drive to build a Ram temple on the ruins of the razed mosque remains a key political priority of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is currently the main opposition party in parliament.
India's chief Muslim cleric, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, has echoed the calls for calm, but also criticised hardline Hindu groups for shunning efforts to find an out-of-court compromise.
"One can only strike a compromise with those who want to resolve the dispute through sincere talks," Bukhari told AFP.
The high court decision can be challenged in India's Supreme Court.
"My estimate is that the case will reach the Supreme Court irrespective of who the court rules in favour of," said senior BJP leader L.K. Advani.
Mahant Gyan Das, a senior member of the Hindu trust seeking to build a Ram temple on the site, insisted that any violence resulting from the ruling would not come from the people of Ayodhya.
"The local population -- Hindus or Muslims -- would never create trouble. What we need to guard against is infiltration by mischief-makers from outside," Das told AFP.
The government has even gone so far as to take out newspaper ads warning against any knee-jerk reactions that might inflame communal tensions.
"There should be no attempt whatsoever made by any section of the people to provoke any other section or to indulge in any expression of emotion that would hurt the feelings of other people," the published appeal said.
India has avoided any major outbreak of Hindu-Muslim violence since riots in Gujarat in 2002.
The government is especially keen to keep a lid on any unrest ahead of the Commonwealth Games in Delhi, which begin on October 3, and the visit of US President Barack Obama in November.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j23lz1crSisYzICru2LHy2w33mVg
(http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=hinduexistence.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhinduexistence.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2Fstop-stop-ground-zero-mosque.jpg&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fhinduexistence.wordpress.com%2F)
-
Yet another disgusting mosque is being built. Indians should destroy it as soon as it erects.
-
Now a three-judge bench in the state capital Lucknow will rule on ownership of the site between Hindu and Muslim groups after rejecting an appeal last week to defer the tinderbox verdict.
I hope and pray that ownership goes to the Hindus. This is the ONLY way to show them that THEY need to be accepting and tolerant.
Do you think there will be riots again, like in 1992? More than 2000 muzzies were killed then, maybe it will triple or more this time.
-
G_d bless the situation.
;D
-
http://www.swaveda.com/articles.php?action=show&id=49
-
The problem with India is that most of its citizens are not devout Hindu nationalists, but are secularists or even left-wing Marxists who tolerate, or even side with, the Muzzies.
-
Problems are many but Hindus will get united a day for a glorious cause of ultimate victory.
-
Anyone who tells you that building mosques does not create controversial situations and violence is delusional!
-
There may not be a single mosque which has not been built to the utter pain of others.
-
i witnessed a meeting where one of the hindu nationalist leader was asked by a liberal in front of media that "We may rebuild our temple back but a mosque should be constructed close to it, so as to increase hindu-muslim brotherhood". His answer was "If having a mosque beside a hindu temple increases hindu-muslim brotherhood, then lets start with Mecca, build a hindu temple over there so we can truly and seriously accept that muslims want brotherhood with hindus" the conference room went silent. ;D
-
HZ that's a very good answer!
-
i witnessed a meeting where one of the hindu nationalist leader was asked by a liberal in front of media that "We may rebuild our temple back but a mosque should be constructed close to it, so as to increase hindu-muslim brotherhood". His answer was "If having a mosque beside a hindu temple increases hindu-muslim brotherhood, then lets start with Mecca, build a hindu temple over there so we can truly and seriously accept that muslims want brotherhood with hindus" the conference room went silent. ;D
;D :laugh: :::D
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques
-
thanks for the support guys..
The Verdict has been delayed by the Court, and its now scheduled on 30th Sept. Today we were about to arrive at the verdict, but the judges gave some time. Internet,Text messaging and Broadcasting was banned in entire India by the government for 3 hrs during the court hearing, To prevent misinformation which can start massive Hindu-Muslim riots.
Now all set for 30th!!
-
Good luck to modern archeology:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/foundnlost.html
-
I hope the Hindus crush the Mosque proponents. If Muslims really need a Mosque there are plenty in Arabia [for now!]. There is no need to drag Islam into a non-Islamic country and ruin for the rest of the countries citizens [the US, India, and Israel are all great examples of where Islam should not be.].
-
G_D, YOU Are that YOU Are.
-
Hindus, Muslims to split site of former triumphal mosque built over destroyed Hindu temple
This compromise is likely to lead to more rioting and will of course satisfy no one, especially the Islamic supremacists who will continue to demand that the entire site be given to them. "Ayodhya verdict: disputed site to be split between Hindus and Muslims," from the Telegraph, September 30 (thanks to Kristian):
A disputed Indian holy site in Ayodhya claimed by Muslims and Hindus is to be divided between the two religious groups, a lawyer acting for one of the Hindu litigants told reporters.
Muslims revere the compound in Ayodhya, north India, as the site of the now-demolished 16th century Babri Mosque, while Hindus say it is the birthplace of the god Rama....
Typical mainstream media bias. Hindus say more than just that: there is a clearly historical reason why the site belongs to them. Even AFP acknowledged this a few weeks ago: "In 1992, the 16th-century mosque was razed by Hindu zealots who said it was built on the ruins of a temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu warrior god Ram." It attributes the claim that the 16th-century mosque was a victory mosque built on the site of a destroyed Hindu temple to "Hindu zealots," but it is noteworthy for a mainstream media source even to go that far into what mainstream reporters would ordinarily classify as "Islamophobia."
That sentence comes from a story that contains some other revealing details: "Indian Muslim cleric urges calm over Ayodhya verdict," from AFP, September 3 (thanks again to Kristian):
NEW DELHI (AFP) - India's chief Muslim cleric appealed Friday for calm over an expected court ruling on a bitterly disputed religious site that triggered massive Hindu-Muslim riots in India 18 years ago....
In 1992, the 16th-century mosque was razed by Hindu zealots who said it was built on the ruins of a temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu warrior god Ram.
The destruction triggered some of the bloodiest communal violence since the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, leaving around 2,000 people dead.
"Whatever may be the verdict and whatever may be the provocations, I appeal to Muslims not to take the law into their own hands," said Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief imam in New Delhi's Jama Masjid mosque.
In a Friday sermon to thousands of congregants, Bukhari nevertheless argued that the Muslim claim to the site was indisputable.
"The Babri mosque was there and the court has to acknowledge that fact and so the site rightfully belongs to Muslims," he said.
"We are also not willing to give an inch to anyone."
That could be adopted as the motto of Islamic supremacists everywhere, from Ibrahim Hooper to Feisal Abdul Rauf.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/hindus-muslims-to-split-site-of-former-triumphal-mosque-built-over-destroyed-hindu-temple.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayodhya#Allahabad_High_Court_verdict.2C_September_2010
This says its being divided into 3 ways, two of the parties are hindu and one is muslim.
-
If it were me, I would press for the full Hindu Temple w/ no Muslim presence. Of course, its not my religion or country, but if it were its how I would feel [just like I feel about the Temple Mount, and the Cave of the Patriarchs, or any other usurped sacred Jewish land... such as Israel.].
-
G_D, YOU Are that YOU Are.
Are you trying to refer to the Holy name? That is not a complete translation, but an approximation...
I have heard a more accurate translation is:
I am What I will be.
http://www.globalyeshiva.com/forum/topics/a-commentary-on-exodus-3-1315
http://www.nishmat.net/article.php?id=88&heading=0
Before going to Egypt, Moses asked what should he tell the Israelites if they asked him what is G-d's name. G-d replied, "I will be what I will be. Tell Israel as follows: 'I-will-be (ehyeh) sent me to you' " (Shemot 3:14). "I will be" signifies G-d's unbounded potential. It is functionally equivalent to E-l Sh-dai, "the Almighty."
It is not G-d's proper name, however. G-d continued, "Tell Israel as follows: haShem the G-d of your fathers, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sent me to you. This is my name forever, and my remembrance from generation to generation" (v. 15).
G-d's name Y-d, heh, vav, h-h comprises the letters that form the Hebrew words for was, is and will be. It evokes G-d's eternalness by reference to past, present and future. Only a timeless people mirrors an eternal G-d. By contrast, an individual--even a Patriarch--is finite, his lifetime fixed and his horizons limited. That haShem was not known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob means that as individuals they could not relate to the ineffable name.
G-d said, "...but my name haShem-I was not known (lo nodati) to them". The transcendant nature of G-d is reflected only in the community. It should also be understood as "I did not meet (lo noadti) with them". A dialogue with the ineffable Name can take place only between G-d and His people.
-
Thanx for information.