Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mandir-Masjid demolitions.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Mandir-Masjid demolitions.

    Just a few points i couldn't help notice on the BabriMasjid thread. Just like that one,this one too is heavily steeped in religion, but it has a lot of political externalities attached. Hope it's fine on this forum.

    1. Which is worse, hindus demolishing the unused and dilapidated Babri Masjid built over the rubble of a Ram temple or muslims torching an actively used mosque in Multan? Why i'm asking is, the Multan mosque issue, though posted here failed to evoke even a luke warm response from the members; while Babri Masjid, even after years of it's demolition is a "hot" topic! Makes me wonder if we discuss things to learn and modify our perception of an issue or is it just to get a few kicks before one gets on with his day.

    2. Why is it that most pakistani members are not bothered by the demolition of a temple and torching of hindus alive in Pakistan in retaliation to the Babri Masjid issue? I hear only Nova bringing it up. The Masjid issue was bloodless. Still it continues to be a bigger issue than the temple demolition. Why?

    3. Again, among hindus in India, quite a lot feel demolition of the Masjid wasn't right, it is reflected in the Indian Parliament, and the Supreme Court's orders. Are any of the Pakistani members ashamed that Muslim rulers demolished thousands of temples and build "sacred" mosques over the rubble? If they are, i dont see anyone mentioning it.Would like to see some views.

    Simple ain't easy.

    #2
    Queer,
    All I can say is that this was done by Pakistanis or Indians, not Muslims or Hindus. As far as muslims concern, All I can say is the teaching of Islam is totally different as shown by 2nd Khalif Hazart Umar. He refused to offer prayer in Christian chruch because he was affraid that muslims will take that Church away from christians if he will offer prayer in that church as a 2nd Khalif.
    I am not agree with your comment on who muslim ruler have demolished temples in their times. I can see some individual acts but on whole non-muslim communities were save under muslims rules. Like just see Spain, Islam was not imposed on non muslims, infact all the jews from all over the Europe were migrating to spain because they had better protection from Muslims. Than what happened with those muslims, they were either murdered or forced to leave Spain. Same thing happened in India, you probably have some incident where Temples were demolished, but still Hindus were happy under muslim rules and all the conversions were done by Saints. Islam was never imposed forcefully by any Muslim King.
    I can go on and on but I just want you to think and try to seperate politics from religion. An act of any muslim is not neccessary an Islamic act.

    Comment


      #3
      Johnd,

      I think you should read correct history not the distorted version taught in Pakistani schools. The Sikhism acquired its present form to stop the spread of Islam by sword and to uphold principle the freedom of choice. Two of the Sikh Gurus, Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Guru Teg Bhadar Ji were tortured to death and two of the children of Guru Govind Ji were buried alive by Muslim rulers of the day for their refusal to convert to Islam. Sikhs were hunted down there was a price placed on the head of each and every Sikh by the Muslim rulers.

      History tells us that Aurangzeb use to weigh one munn (about 35 kilos) of Janau (thread worn by Hindus and weighs a few grams) taken off at the time of conversion before he sat for his dinner.

      Guru Nanak (he loved all human beings and had following among Hindus and Muslims) in his writings mentions atrocities committed by Muslims to forcible convert people and terrorize hindus.

      Sikhism started as a peaceful religion but changed to Saint Soldier form to fight Zulm


      [This message has been edited by Rani (edited December 08, 1999).]

      Comment


        #4
        An act of any Moslem or a group of moslems is not an "Islamic act" but an act of a hindu or a group of hindus is a "Hindu Act". That means every hindu is accountable to his religion and other religions too while a moslem is not. Like if a hindu temple is destroyed and couple of hindus die in the process in Pakistan it is a "group of deranged Moslems commiting an isolated act which does not come under the purview of Islamic Law " while if the same no. of deranged hindus in India destroy an unused Mosque where there is no blood spilled it a "collective HINDU persecution against moslems"....and that means every hindu shares the responsibility which we don't mind but use the same scale everytime buddies.

        Comment

        Working...
        X