Babari Masjid cont........

[Rani]

I would like to share the following article with the forum participants. The article may shed some light on the reason behind the destruction of the Barbari Mosque, which has been mentioned and discussed many times on this forum.

Name Of The Book: Hindustan Islami Ahad mein (India under Islamic Rule)
Name Of The Historian: Maulana Abdul Hai.
About The Author: He is a highly respected scholar and taken as an authority on Islamic history. Because of his scholarship and his services to Islam, Maulana Abdul Hai was appointed as the Rector of the Darul Nadwa Ullum Nadwatal-Ulama. He continued in that post till his death in February 1923.

The following section is taken from the chapter Hindustan ki Masjidein (The mosques of India) of the above mentioned book. Here we can see a brief description of few important mosques in India and how each one of them was built upon plundered Hindu temples.

1.Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at elhi: "According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al_Islam which,
Qutubud-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the hindu temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592 he started building, under orders from Shihabud -Din Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque..."

2.The Mosque at Jaunpur: "This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid.."

3.The Mosque at Qanauj: "It is well known that this mosque was built on the oundations of some Hindu temple that stood here. The mosque was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar"

4.Jami Masjid at Etwah: "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.."

5.BABRI MASJID AT AYODHYA: "This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ayodhya which Hindus call the birth place of Ramchandraji... Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque in H.963 "

6.Mosque at Benaras: "Mosque of Benares was built by Alamgir Aurangzeb on the site of Bisheshwar Temple. That temple was very tall and held as holy among 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."

7.Mosque at Mathura: "Alamgir Aurangzeb built a mosque at Mathura. This mosque was built on site of the Govind Dev Temple which was very strong and beautiful as well as exquisite.."

It is really amazing that you guys can do little beyond destroying other peoples' shrines. Why not build one yourselves on vacant land, for a change? Even the Mecca masjid, holiest of holies, has been usurped from Arab pagans after destroying the 360 idols and uncounted paintings therein.

Bottomline: Hindus commit vandalism, we are merely propagating the true faith!

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited December 19, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited December 19, 1999).]

[Achtung]

Are you trying to say that demolishing the Masjid was somehow justified?

Two wrongs make a right?

I can't understand, can you explain?

The majority of Muslims, do not encourage or promote the destruction of other religious sites. In fact in Islam, we are instructed as Muslims to protect the religious buildings of the "people of the book" (Christians and Jews), this is our obligation as Muslims, to respect and protect their holy places. I think the same applies for other religious sites.

Achtung

Achtung

[sabah]

Rani
I was waiting for this
About the Mecca mosque, I assume you’re talking about Ka’ba. Plz read the Muslim history before you face Muslims with your findings and facts. Ka’ba was first build by Hazrat Adam pbuh, then ’rebuild’ by other Prophets. It was and is a Muslim holy place.
I wonder how the Idols ended there.


[This message has been edited by sabah (edited December 20, 1999).]

[mundyaa]

Islam being the fastest growing religion did leave many broken idols, destroyed temples etc. The fact is as more people converted to islam they infact themselves destroyed their old religious shrines.

Its a fact that you can not convert someone atleast from the heart by putting a sword to their head. If it was true why would so many hindus convert to other religions even today?

[ZZ]

well... Islam is fastest growing religion more due to faster production of kids than anything else.

There are cases of conversions. But they are far and few in between. And mind you, Hindus Chistians or others might convert to Islam cuz they are allowed to. On the other hand, if u try to convert from Islam, u will get a death penalty.

Even if the innocuous 'Hare Rama Hare Krishna' or Bahais or Ahmadies or missionaries end up in Muslim state today to convert others, their fate needs no guess.

Why you can not convert others by forc? You can.. Common man gives much more importance to his/her life than religion and other nonsense. If u tell me that I will be killed or better convert, I will most probably convert. So many people get converted when they see a pretty babe/ bloke of another religion and if she/he insists on conversion. For them, it does not matter. Sword is even bigger fear.

If this was not so, why have Parsis run all the way to India from Iran? They did not come for tourism.

The way in which Islam propagated and is sustained also reflects in Muslims thinking. They have a great attraction of force, use of force anmd physical violence. None bats an eyelid when military calls shots, may it be Indonesia or Pak. Ask a Pakistani of cure to problems of his country, the remedy will be quite blood thirsty. There is no hatred for overt accumulation of power or dectatorship in Muslim psyche. All their religious parties unanimously declare democracy unislamic.

For Achtung, as far as I know Islamic law is completely different for 'people of book' and idol worshippers like Hindus.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited December 20, 1999).]

[mundyaa]

In its entire history, the only religion that has expanded by birth is hinduism. By preaching animal sex and making humans worship their own sexual parts, its a little surprise why.

Just the fact that wherever muslims went, they produced good muslims who went on and practiced islam to its fullest, is a proof that it wasnt forced onto them. You can force something for a day or two, or a month or a year, but you just cant force something for a lifetime and more importantly feed it to your generation. The truth is majority of the ones who converted were disgusted by their old religions, class systems etc.

[johnd]

Thats all you can find against thousand years of muslim rules over India. Let me remind you guys one thing, it was you Hindu Raja who invited muslims to attack India by taking away some of the muslim ship going to fareast for trading. He was the one who captured small kids and Women as hostage. This was just a start. If you want I can go on and on on Hindus character. I am sure if we had Hindus Ruling on muslims they would have destroyed all the mosque and you guys are complaining about few temples. We have seen the glimpes of that under Raja Ranjit singh rule on Punjab. He forcefully stopped muslims to offer paryer and converted muslims Mosque into Barns.

[Achtung]

ZZ...this post isn't about conversion and the rate at which religions are growing and the mechanisms behind those conversions. But let me just say that Islam is the fastest growing religion in North America, where people convert out of their own intuition, without any physical force. These converts are from all walks of life and from all races and ethnicities, not to mention genders.

ZZ you went on in your post to throw out all these generalizations about "Islam" as if it was a monolithic religion. You need to throw in some qualifiers in there if your gonna make such broad sweeping statements. Muslims do not have any inate "attraction to force" as you stated, rather it is an "attraction to liberation and freedom from oppression", whether that oppression be physical or emotional. One of the means to eliminate oppression is through force, and Islam permits Muslim to use force to eliminate oppression.

Let me just quote you a passage from John Esposito's book, just so that you can understand that Islam 1) is not monolithic, 2) spread differently in different parts of the world, 3) is a religion of peace if practiced in its proper form:

"For many non-Muslim populations in Byzantine and Persian territories already subjected to foreign rulers, Islamic rule meant an exchange of rulers, the new ones often more flexible and tolerant, rather than a loss of independence. Many of these populations now enjoyed greater local autonomy and often paid lower taxes...Religiously Islam proved a more tolerant religion, providing greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians...For this reason Jewish and Christian communities has actually aided the invading Muslim armies...Just as Muslim leaders tended to leave the government institutions and bureacracy intact, so too religious communities were free to practice their faith and be governed in their internal affairs by their religious laws and leaders."


Here is another by Francis Peter:

"The [Muslim] conquests destroyed little, what they did suppress were imperial rivalries and sectarian bloodletting among the newly subjagated population. The Muslims tolerated Christianity but they dis-established it; hence forth Christian life and liturgy, its endowments, politics and theology, would be a private not public affairs...The reduction in Christian status was merely judicial; it was uncaccompanied by either systematic persecution or blood lust, and generally, though not everywhere and at all times, unmarred by vexatious behaviour."

So as you can see, there is varied opinion on Muslim rule and treatment of minorities. You should be careful when making broad statements, condemning Islam. I can make the same statements you made about Christian missionaries, who accompanied colonizers. Its unfortunate that Islam is associated with the sword, when in reality, it was not the case, in the majority of conversions (ie. look at Indonesia, a country which converted after years of exchange with Arab traders, on their own free will). Even during the Spanish inquisition, Christian philosophers, painters and other artisans, joined forces with Muslims to fight against the oppressive forces of Christianity. Keep painting this distorted image of Islam, I'm certain that Muslims like myself, will continue to 'unsay' what people like yourself are trying so hard to 'say'.

Achtung

[Reagan]

All the teachings of Islam only exist in theory. Its followers have never been and will never be able to practice it. To me it sounds more like HOT AIR.

How come muslims are at odds with all the religions of the world ? Not to mention all the Shia/Sunni wars. The total number of muslims killed in Iran iraq war (over dumb**** secterian differences) is probably more than all muslims killed in Israeli/arabs wars.

[This message has been edited by Reagan (edited December 20, 1999).]

[Achtung]

Reagan: "All the teachings of Islam only exist in theory."

No, they are put in practice by Muslims.

Reagan: "Its followers have never been and will never be able to practice it."

Actually its followers are practicing it. Perhaps you want to discuss one aspect of Islam, which only exists in 'theory'. Surely you can't seriously believe that Islam cannot be practiced in all of its facets.

Reagan wrote: "To me it sounds more like HOT AIR."

Actually you sound like hot air.

Reagan wrote: "How come muslims are at odds with all the religions of the world ?"

How come you are at odds with Muslims. I am Muslim, and I can assure you I am not at odds with any other religion, I am quite content with my own. So are most people on this forum.

Reagan wrote: "Not to mention all the Shia/Sunni wars."

I didn't realize there were Shia and Sunni wars today? There are select instances of clashes between two groups, clashes which are more complicated than you are making them out to be. But not wars.

Reagan wrote: "The total number of muslims killed in Iran iraq war (over dumb**** secterian differences) is probably more than all muslims killed in Israeli/arabs wars."

"Probably is", you write? Or is? You don't know, so why compare the two. Besides, the Iran/Iraq war was an internationalized conflict, like so many others. Your forgetting the geo-politics of the region in question.

Anyways, I don't feel like wasting my time, writing anymore, since you've obviously not taken any time to think out your ridiculous post.

Achtung

[ZZ]

What I hate about the entire discourse is that attitude that 'these things did not happen.' People converted on own. Temples fell down due to heavy rain. Parsis and other minorities in iran ran away for sightseeing (Hey! Even the story of running away of Indian Gypsies is supposed to be related to advent of Muslim empire.)

never mind that the attitude was reverse before. Muslims took pride in number converted by force. In fact, Hindu communalists tend to quote extensively from Muslim historians in old times.

And now is talk of Muslims being against opression. Read the rules which are subject to idol worshipping population in Muslim state, and you will know what opression is. These states still refuse to give right to vote to minorities, forget right to preach religion. Talk of equality. If oppression is issue, do u or u dont agree that Guru Govindsinghji and Shivaji fought against tyranny and opression.

[Achtung]

I wrote: "So as you can see, there is varied opinion on Muslim rule and treatment of minorities. You should be careful when making broad statements, condemning Islam."

I never said that Muslims did not force conversions, I simply said there is a variety of ways in which people have come to Islam. And to make blanket statements is ignorant.

Yes Muslims have destroyed non-Muslim religious sites of worship, yes Muslims have subjected non-Muslims to tyranny, yes Muslims have been a force of oppression. But Muslims have also protected non-Muslim minorities, they have protected their places of worship, they have granted them rights which were denied to them by other rulers and they have fought for liberation and freedom.

1) Do you agree with the above statement? (if you don't I'll assume you believe all Muslim rulers were/are evil despots)
2) Do you believe that destroying the Babri Masjid is justified? (if you do I'll assume your belief is justified based on the actions of previous generations of Muslims)

Achtung

PS: ZZ, when you make statments like "Muslims are attracted to force", "there is no hatred for overt accumulation of power or dictatorship in Muslim psyche" its inaccurate and ignorant. There is no such thing as one Muslim psyche and Muslims oppose all dictators and despots ruling them at present - they are for the most part puppet regimes. Anyways, you should be more careful in what your typing, its offensive. I can be equally offensive and discuss the "Hindu psyche" (which doesn't exist) and "Hindu's obsession with force" (which doesn't exist), but why should I make up stories and look ignorant in the process.

[ZZ]

I have always believed that there have been rulers like Akbar who believed in communal harmony. Maybe Jehangir and Bahadur Shah Jafar (Jafar.. well more of poet than ruler) but it can't be said about plenty others.

The reason I opposed the Babri demolition in that period and continue to do it is a) my country deserves better debates than some place should be temple or mosque b) rule of law should hold. I believe this feeling was shared by plenty others. The 4 assemblies that BJP was ruling were dissolved and in elections that followed BJP was routed in all of them including in UP.

P.S. About other statements... I am yet to see proper democracy in a Muslim majority state. Either they have outlawed Islam as in Turkey or they do not have democracy as in Saudi Arabia. The third pattern flip-flops between democracy and martial law. I believe it is not a sheer coincidence. There is an ideological baggage which is difficult for dmocracy. Several examples can be cites. There is no law making in Islam. Only law finding. For a given situation, ulemas will go on to find precedents in Hadith. This puts extraordinary constraints on democracy. Since now it is more a debate of what is religiously correct than what is right for the people.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited December 21, 1999).]

[Asif]

The myth of Muslims forcing poeple to convert has now been debunked by all serious academics from the West as just myth; it is the great sufi saints like Hazrat Khwaja Gharib Nawaz that converted people to Islam.

Here is a general rule of thumb: if a kaafir likes a Muslim ruler, the chances are that he wasn't a particularly good Muslim.

That is why hindus love to praise Akbar but hate the other Mughals, especially Hazrat Aurangaib Alamgir. It is a known fact of history that in the second half of his reign Akbar became an apostate and formed his own religion by mixing Islam and Hinduism. He called it Din-e-Ilaahi. In this part of his reign the sun was worshipped every morning. He used to do pooja etc. etc. All under the influence of his hindu advisors.

But thank Allah that the great ulama at that time opposed him and most of the people remained Muslims and rejected his Din-e-Ilaahi as a result; only a few of his courtiers joined in this religion of his. He made his courtiers prostrate to him!! But Allah cleansed the religion aftr him through his son Jahangir and then his great-grandson Hazrat Aurangaib; both of these through the influence of the great Sufi and Scholar Hazrat Sayyedina Imam-e-Rabbani, Mujaddid-e-Alf-al-Thani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi Naqshbandi quds sirruhu and his blessed sons.

My point is that it is 'Muslims' like Akbar whom the kaafirs will like and admire; those who actually practised Islamic rule--the kuffaar hate them.

Hazrat Aurangzaib Alamgir, who was also by the consensus of the Sunni ulama, a wali-e-kaamil, ruled with shar'ia law. He reinstated the jizya. He got rid of all the hindu customs which were prevalent at court; he stopped the practise of sajjadah-e-ta'zeem which had been initiated for the Emperor. Yet it is a fact that more hindus had high positions under his rule than under that of any other mughal. this proves that the hindu myth that he killed hindus indiscriminately is just propaganda.

About Akbar (his grandfather) he is reported to have said:
"Jad-e-man Akbar, akbar neest, akfar ast."
which means,

My grandfather Akbar, was not akbar (great) but a great kaafir (akfar) !

May Allah bless him; and raise up amongst the musulmaans another great ruler like him.amin.



[This message has been edited by Asif (edited December 21, 1999).]

[Asif]

Another post in reply to Rani. It is an anecdote.
The great king Hazrat Mahmud Ghaznavi when he did jihad against the Hindus and captured their temple at Somnath, which was famous for its wealth, the hindus told him not to destroy the idols and he can have as much gold as he wants. His reply was beautiful. (Iqbal has put it in poetry--i cannot recall
but its meaning was this

"I want people to remember me as a but-shikan [destroyr of idols] not a but-prast [idol worshipper]!"