The Allahabad High Court judgment is ridiculous on the face of it. If 1/3 of the premises were declared as Masjid then how the integral remaining premises was held to be distributed among the rival parties?
The premises could have been Masjid, mandir (hindu temple) or ukharha (wrestling training area).
So when one third of the premises were held as Masjid then the remaining integral part could have not been held as anything else by any stretch of imagination. Were the conformist judges sightless, they could not see the onslaught of the Babri Masjid by the BJP terrorists in 1992 under the leadership of L K Advani made known by media all over the world?
Abisafyan, if you keep doing this your threads are going to be shut down. If you want to discuss issues people in the U.S. aren’t familiar with, that’s great. But you can’t just start talking about these things with no context and expect people to guess. Maybe you don’t want a general interest forum.
Perhapa a Wiki article will help. The disputed site was an ancient Hindiu temple. A Muslim mosque (Babri Mosque) was built on the site in 1527 when the Mughal dynasty ruled India – the Mughals were Muslims ruling over a mostly Hindu country. The Babri Mosque was destroyed in 1992 by Hindus, and as a result hundreds have died.
I am not against religion in general, & I find myself agreeing with this. The jackasses will of course continue to try & kill each other. But if both claim it as holy ground, let them be forced to share it, & come to an accommodation.
Granted, that’s a risky path, but all paths forward are somewhat risky in this kind of case. It might be the riskiest, though. But it’s at least attempting to make concessions to both sides.
The court declared that the site would be divided into three parts. One part would go to the Hindu group maintaining the outer area (if I understand correctly,) one part - but not the part where the mosque used to be - would go to the Muslims, who want to rebuild, and the final part, containing the site of the earlier temple and the now destroyed mosque, would go to a Hindu group which wants to rebuild the shrine to Rama that was there before it was turned into a mosque. There’s currently a sort of tent-shrine there. The court said that archeological evidence is clear that the Hindu site predates the mosque.
The Muslim side has said they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court (the next and final step in this process.) So far it looks like there won’t be violence at the moment, possibly because both sides have announced that this is just one step in the judicial process. The Muslim side in the debate wants the whole area turned over to them and the mosque rebuilt. The Hindu side wants to turn the whole place, not just he tent-shrine, into a temple to Rama. But the Hindu party to the suit would probably take this as a win, if the opposing Muslim side would drop it. (At least, that’s how it sounds from the article.)
Well, that’s your problem. Common law court decisions aren’t supposed to be read on their face. You’re supposed to look at the ruling as a whole and see what evidence they weighed.
The Hindus can make the exact same argument.
Oh, please. It’s pretty clear that none of us here, including you, is familiar with Indian common law, the facts of this case, or the details of this ruling. If you don’t like the outcome, then so be it. Nobody has to agree with any court ruling. But you’re not going to convince anybody that the ruling is wrong without actually analyzing the facts of the case as presented to the court.
Now, before you respond to me, note that I haven’t expressed an opinion on whether or not the ruling is correct.
The Indian court appears to have gone beyond its jurisdiction, however. By ruling that the Babri Masjid site is indeed the birth place of Rama (see BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: Ayodhya verdict: A happy compromise?), it has gone from realm of human society into that of supernatural beings. There is little evidence to state that Ram and his ilk actually existed, or that the events described in the Ramayana are based on historical facts. Does the OP have any idea on what basis this was done? I would have expected that the Allahabad high court (which passed this judgement) would have deferred the ruling to some such time (in the far off future, hopefully), when irrefutable archaeological proof could be made available regarding the nature of this site.
As the judgement now stands, the court seems to have failed India’s secular constitution. I am neither a Hindu or a Muslim, but as an Indian national, I was personally quite disappointed with the ruling. If this matter goes to the supreme court, I hope that at least the highest court in the land will take a scientific, unbiased view before delivering a judgement. I know that there are several visitors of south-asian origins here. Opinions, anyone?
This was the bit that I found most interesting when I heard it being discussed on the radio. The “expert” being interviewed was trying to explain how gods have a legal existence in Indian law, as “juristic persons”, but I was not quite getting it. Do you know more about that?
I can find this, which explains that a juristic person is “any beings or things or objects which are treated as persons by law. For legal purposes, they are given the similar treatment as that to the human beings.” But then it explains that Hindu gods count but Mohammad wouldn’t?
I read about this court decision in the news in Canada, and I know what you are talking about. You see, although both Canada and the US are located on the same continent, Canadians are generally aware that the rest of the world exists.
Now that I have gotten the Americans mad at me, I will proceed to get you mad at me too. The deaths and rioting in 1992, as well as the centuries of wars and conflict brtween Muslims and Hindus might perhaps lead you to conclude that ALL religions, whether Islam, Hinduism or Christianity, are quite simply delusional bullshit. It outrages me that even a single life has been lost, let alone hundreds and thousands, because of differing opinions about imaginary beings (gods).
The sane solution, of course, would be for all Hindus and Muslims in India (and Christians too) to abandon religion altogether and consider one another as brothers and sisters. Turn the site of this temple/mosque into a free clinic for people who need medical care, and use the money that Muslims Hindus and Christians give to support their delusional nonsense to pay for doctors and nurses to staff the clinic. Just a suggestion.
I understand that the Muslims are one of the parties, and that the Hindus are another. Who is “the other” and why is the article so coy about naming the third party?
According to the OP the third party is involved somehow with wrestling.
Another Hindu group called Nirmohi Akhara, who are Hanuman worshipers and want to build a temple to Ram on the site. So one third goes to the Hindus who put up a shrine to Ram in the ruins of the central dome of the mosque, one third goes to the Muslim group that controlled the mosque before it was destroyed, and one third goes to Nirmohi Akhara, which wanted the site to build a temple to Ram on it.
