Historic Hindu Temple Inaugurated in India on site of Mosque

[The Hindustani State]

Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan: PM Modi offers prayers to Ram Lalla, performs 'sashtang pranam'

Basically, in an event that has largely been overshadowed in the news by coronavirus and the Lebanon explosion, a historic temple to the Hindu deity Lord Rama has been inaugurated in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama and one of the holiest sites in Hinduism.

For context, a massive shrine to Lord Rama had existed there for centuries, in 1527, Mughal conqueror Babur conquered Ayodhya, and as a symbol of his victory over the Kingdoms of India, he tore down the shrine to Rama and built a Mosque known as the Babri Masjid, burying the idols of the former shrine under the steps of the Mosque so they would have to be trampled when entering. Ever since, it has been a Hindu dream to one day rebuild the shrine to Lord Rama, however, this was not possible as for centuries, Hindus were second class citizens and oppressed by the Mughals and Sultanates of India.

In 1992, rioters forcefully tore down the Babri Masjid, sparking months of riots and communal violence in India between Hindus and Muslims. A court case arose which had not been resolved until early this year, when the High Court of India ruled in favour of the Hindus, but allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque nearby.

Today, the building of the historic temple has been commissioned in a ceremony known as Bhoomi Pujan, where the shrine of Lord Rama, which had been torn down in 1527, is finally being rebuilt. However, this has not come without controversy, a Hindu organization in America, which had bought a Times Square slot for people in NYC to see the inauguration of the temple in public, was revoked it’s slot due to activism from Islamist groups in the US, which the World Hindu Council has denounced.

What is your opinion on this issue?

I think this is an amazing day, and it is going to go down in the history books of India. It cannot be stressed enough how big this is for Hindus not just in India, but Hindus around the world. This is akin to the Jews rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.

[Salus Maior]

So you avenge the injustice of tearing down a centuries old historical religious site, by tearing down a centuries old historical religious site.

Good job, we've learned so much here.

[Superduperkid]

Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan: PM Modi offers prayers to Ram Lalla, performs 'sashtang pranam'

Basically, in an event that has largely been overshadowed in the news by coronavirus and the Lebanon explosion, a historic temple to the Hindu deity Lord Rama has been inaugurated in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama and one of the holiest sites in Hinduism.

For context, a massive shrine to Lord Rama had existed there for centuries, in 1527, Mughal conqueror Babur conquered Ayodhya, and as a symbol of his victory over the Kingdoms of India, he tore down the shrine to Rama and built a Mosque known as the Babri Masjid, burying the idols of the former shrine under the steps of the Mosque so they would have to be trampled when entering. Ever since, it has been a Hindu dream to one day rebuild the shrine to Lord Rama, however, this was not possible as for centuries, Hindus were second class citizens and oppressed by the Mughals and Sultanates of India.

In 1992, rioters forcefully tore down the Babri Masjid, sparking months of riots and communal violence in India between Hindus and Muslims. A court case arose which had not been resolved until early this year, when the High Court of India ruled in favour of the Hindus, but allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque nearby.

Today, the building of the historic temple has been commissioned in a ceremony known as Bhoomi Pujan, where the shrine of Lord Rama, which had been torn down in 1527, is finally being rebuilt. However, this has not come without controversy, a Hindu organization in America, which had bought a Times Square slot for people in NYC to see the inauguration of the temple in public, was revoked it’s slot due to activism from Islamist groups in the US, which the World Hindu Council has denounced.

What is your opinion on this issue?

I think this is an amazing day, and it is going to go down in the history books of India. It cannot be stressed enough how big this is for Hindus not just in India, but Hindus around the world. This is akin to the Jews rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.

LOL

Poor mosque.

[The Hindustani State]

So you avenge the injustice of tearing down a centuries old historical religious site, by tearing down a centuries old historical religious site.

Good job, we've learned so much here.

The mosque had been extrajudicially torn down in 1992, the court case was over whether Hindus can build a temple on its site

[Superduperkid]

So you avenge the injustice of tearing down a centuries old historical religious site, by tearing down a centuries old historical religious site.

Good job, we've learned so much here.

The mosque had been extrajudicially torn down in 1992, the court case was over whether Hindus can build a temple on its site

He’s trying to say they tore it down. It doesn’t matter whether it was destroyed recently or not, it was still torn down.

[Salus Maior]

Today, the building of the historic temple has been commissioned in a ceremony known as Bhoomi Pujan, where the shrine of Lord Rama, which had been torn down in 1527, is finally being rebuilt. However, this has not come without controversy, a Hindu organization in America, which had bought a Times Square slot for people in NYC to see the inauguration of the temple in public, was revoked it’s slot due to activism from Islamist groups in the US, which the World Hindu Council has denounced.

Can't it just be streamed for those interested in seeing it?

[The Two Jerseys]

I predict a suicide bombing in the future.

[Superduperkid]

I predict a suicide bombing in the future.

That won’t be good, but it’s likely.

[The Hindustani State]

The mosque had been extrajudicially torn down in 1992, the court case was over whether Hindus can build a temple on its site

He’s trying to say they tore it down. It doesn’t matter whether it was destroyed recently or not, it was still torn down.

The Babri Masjid was a continuing symbol of the subjugation and oppression of Hindus under the Indian Sultanates and Islamic ruling class.

It’s almost symbolic, since they buried Idols under the steps of the mosque, worshippers would have to trample them to enter, ensuring Hindus didn’t come in. Kind of symbolizes Hindus under the Mughals and subsequently the British

[Neanderthaland]

They shouldn't build any kind of religious building there. There's to much resentment. Turn it into something neural everyone can enjoy. A park maybe.

Just... not a Mughal garden

[North American Soviet Socialist Republic]

Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan: PM Modi offers prayers to Ram Lalla, performs 'sashtang pranam'

Basically, in an event that has largely been overshadowed in the news by coronavirus and the Lebanon explosion, a historic temple to the Hindu deity Lord Rama has been inaugurated in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama and one of the holiest sites in Hinduism.

For context, a massive shrine to Lord Rama had existed there for centuries, in 1527, Mughal conqueror Babur conquered Ayodhya, and as a symbol of his victory over the Kingdoms of India, he tore down the shrine to Rama and built a Mosque known as the Babri Masjid, burying the idols of the former shrine under the steps of the Mosque so they would have to be trampled when entering. Ever since, it has been a Hindu dream to one day rebuild the shrine to Lord Rama, however, this was not possible as for centuries, Hindus were second class citizens and oppressed by the Mughals and Sultanates of India.

In 1992, rioters forcefully tore down the Babri Masjid, sparking months of riots and communal violence in India between Hindus and Muslims. A court case arose which had not been resolved until early this year, when the High Court of India ruled in favour of the Hindus, but allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque nearby.

Today, the building of the historic temple has been commissioned in a ceremony known as Bhoomi Pujan, where the shrine of Lord Rama, which had been torn down in 1527, is finally being rebuilt. However, this has not come without controversy, a Hindu organization in America, which had bought a Times Square slot for people in NYC to see the inauguration of the temple in public, was revoked it’s slot due to activism from Islamist groups in the US, which the World Hindu Council has denounced.

What is your opinion on this issue?

I think this is an amazing day, and it is going to go down in the history books of India. It cannot be stressed enough how big this is for Hindus not just in India, but Hindus around the world. This is akin to the Jews rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.

Typical de Blasio for bowing to the Muslims. I say good on the Hindus for getting back what was rightfully theirs.

[Greed and Death]

They shouldn't build any kind of religious building there. There's to much resentment. Turn it into something neural everyone can enjoy. A park maybe.

Just... not a Mughal garden

It is the site Rama was born. The mosque was only built to deny Hindu use of the site to Hindus and otherwise has no significance to Muslims other than it prevented Hindus from using a holy site.

It would be like if the US conquered Mecca and built a church around the Great Kaaba. The only purpose of the church would be denial of a holy site to Muslims. So even centuries later Muslims would be justified removing said church and rebuilding the grand mosque.

[Bombadil]

In 1992, rioters forcefully tore down the Babri Masjid, sparking months of riots and communal violence in India between Hindus and Muslims. A court case arose which had not been resolved until early this year, when the High Court of India ruled in favour of the Hindus, but allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque nearby.

It wasn't really just rioters, it was organised by the BJP, with more violence instigated by Shiv Shena, and a lot of people died as a result. I don't know if Hindu nationalism is something to be particularly proud of really.

I agree with the above poster who suggested it should have been something neutral such as a park.

[Orostan]

They shouldn't build any kind of religious building there. There's to much resentment. Turn it into something neural everyone can enjoy. A park maybe.

Just... not a Mughal garden

It is the site Rama was born. The mosque was only built to deny Hindu use of the site to Hindus and otherwise has no significance to Muslims other than it prevented Hindus from using a holy site.

It would be like if the US conquered Mecca and built a church around the Great Kaaba. The only purpose of the church would be denial of a holy site to Muslims. So even centuries later Muslims would be justified removing said church and rebuilding the grand mosque.

If in the year 2300 they wanted to tear down that church and rebuild the muslim holy site it still would be a crime against history to destroy that church. Historical artifacts should be preserved when possible, even if they replaced something older.

[The Hindustani State]

In 1992, rioters forcefully tore down the Babri Masjid, sparking months of riots and communal violence in India between Hindus and Muslims. A court case arose which had not been resolved until early this year, when the High Court of India ruled in favour of the Hindus, but allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque nearby.

It wasn't really just rioters, it was organised by the BJP, with more violence instigated by Shiv Shena, and a lot of people died as a result. I don't know if Hindu nationalism is something to be particularly proud of really.

I agree with the above poster who suggested it should have been something neutral such as a park.

Why should one of the holiest sites in Hinduism be a neutral ground? It’s not like it has any significance in Islam, Babur literally built the mosque just to stick it to Hindu kings he had just defeated

[Greed and Death]

It is the site Rama was born. The mosque was only built to deny Hindu use of the site to Hindus and otherwise has no significance to Muslims other than it prevented Hindus from using a holy site.

It would be like if the US conquered Mecca and built a church around the Great Kaaba. The only purpose of the church would be denial of a holy site to Muslims. So even centuries later Muslims would be justified removing said church and rebuilding the grand mosque.

If in the year 2300 they wanted to tear down that church and rebuild the muslim holy site it still would be a crime against history to destroy that church. Historical artifacts should be preserved when possible, even if they replaced something older.

Perhaps. But think of how many decades were had toe peacefully move the Mosque ? And centuries if you count British rule. I would prefer a peaceful moving of the mosque with careful preservation of any artifacts. Hindus have been trying to get their temple back since at least 1853. There was more than enough time for a peaceful negotiated withdrawal. Instead the Muslims hid behind the British and then the Courts. It was really only a matter of time until the local majority had enough and took matters into their own hands.

[North American Soviet Socialist Republic]

It wasn't really just rioters, it was organised by the BJP, with more violence instigated by Shiv Shena, and a lot of people died as a result. I don't know if Hindu nationalism is something to be particularly proud of really.

I agree with the above poster who suggested it should have been something neutral such as a park.

Why should one of the holiest sites in Hinduism be a neutral ground? It’s not like it has any significance in Islam, Babur literally built the mosque just to stick it to Hindu kings he had just defeated

HS is right, why should this site be neutral when it is one of Hinduism's holiest sites. Muslims had no right to it in the first place.

[Greed and Death]

Why should one of the holiest sites in Hinduism be a neutral ground? It’s not like it has any significance in Islam, Babur literally built the mosque just to stick it to Hindu kings he had just defeated

HS is right, why should this site be neutral when it is one of Hinduism's holiest sites. Muslims had no right to it in the first place.

The mosque was built solely to troll the Hindus.

The fact Muslims are surprised once their apartheid regime in India came to an end that it would be tore down is amusing.

If anything I applaud the restraint of the Hindus attempting to negotiate a peaceful solution for decades before resulting to tearing it down.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I predict a suicide bombing in the future.

I don't know about the "suicide" part, but yeah. When the Borobudur temple here –the largest Buddhist temple in the world– in Central Java finished renovation in the 70's, Islamist terrorist immidiately set a bomb and blew up the upper region of the place (though luckily repair can be done quickly). Afaik the tourism minister and some from the reconstruction team was also sent death threats. And this is during Suharto's rule, where Islamist movements has been essentially vanquished by the military dictatorship. India's case, which includes years of sectarian tension, seems to be even more risky. I hope nothing happens, though.

[Aclion]

It is the site Rama was born. The mosque was only built to deny Hindu use of the site to Hindus and otherwise has no significance to Muslims other than it prevented Hindus from using a holy site.

It would be like if the US conquered Mecca and built a church around the Great Kaaba. The only purpose of the church would be denial of a holy site to Muslims. So even centuries later Muslims would be justified removing said church and rebuilding the grand mosque.

If in the year 2300 they wanted to tear down that church and rebuild the muslim holy site it still would be a crime against history to destroy that church. Historical artifacts should be preserved when possible, even if they replaced something older.

If they wanted to preserve it they had 100 years to move it to a location that doesn't obstruct other religions access to their holy sites.

[Orostan]

If in the year 2300 they wanted to tear down that church and rebuild the muslim holy site it still would be a crime against history to destroy that church. Historical artifacts should be preserved when possible, even if they replaced something older.

Perhaps. But think of how many decades were had toe peacefully move the Mosque ? And centuries if you count British rule. I would prefer a peaceful moving of the mosque with careful preservation of any artifacts. Hindus have been trying to get their temple back since at least 1853. There was more than enough time for a peaceful negotiated withdrawal. Instead the Muslims hid behind the British and then the Courts. It was really only a matter of time until the local majority had enough and took matters into their own hands.

You can't move a building. It's literally in the ground. Besides that absolutely nothing justifies the majority "taking things into their own hands" against a minority like this, especially with recent events in India.

If in the year 2300 they wanted to tear down that church and rebuild the muslim holy site it still would be a crime against history to destroy that church. Historical artifacts should be preserved when possible, even if they replaced something older.

If they wanted to preserve it they had 100 years to move it to a location that doesn't obstruct other religions access to their holy sites.

>JUST MOVE THE BUILDING BRO
>JUST MOVE THE HUNDRED YEAR OLD BIGASS STRUCTURE BRO

[Bombadil]

Why should one of the holiest sites in Hinduism be a neutral ground? It’s not like it has any significance in Islam, Babur literally built the mosque just to stick it to Hindu kings he had just defeated

HS is right, why should this site be neutral when it is one of Hinduism's holiest sites. Muslims had no right to it in the first place.

..because stirring further division isn't a great idea over promoting unity, especially given the history of violence between Hindus and Muslims fuelled by the BJP itself.

[Aclion]

Perhaps. But think of how many decades were had toe peacefully move the Mosque ? And centuries if you count British rule. I would prefer a peaceful moving of the mosque with careful preservation of any artifacts. Hindus have been trying to get their temple back since at least 1853. There was more than enough time for a peaceful negotiated withdrawal. Instead the Muslims hid behind the British and then the Courts. It was really only a matter of time until the local majority had enough and took matters into their own hands.

You can't move a building. It's literally in the ground. Besides that absolutely nothing justifies the majority "taking things into their own hands" against a minority like this, especially with recent events in India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Simbe ... Relocation
The building was literally built by a conquering apartheid state over an existing structure for the explicit purpose of genocide.

[Greed and Death]

Perhaps. But think of how many decades were had toe peacefully move the Mosque ? And centuries if you count British rule. I would prefer a peaceful moving of the mosque with careful preservation of any artifacts. Hindus have been trying to get their temple back since at least 1853. There was more than enough time for a peaceful negotiated withdrawal. Instead the Muslims hid behind the British and then the Courts. It was really only a matter of time until the local majority had enough and took matters into their own hands.

You can't move a building. It's literally in the ground. Besides that absolutely nothing justifies the majority "taking things into their own hands" against a minority like this, especially with recent events in India.

If they wanted to preserve it they had 100 years to move it to a location that doesn't obstruct other religions access to their holy sites.

>JUST MOVE THE BUILDING BRO
>JUST MOVE THE HUNDRED YEAR OLD BIGASS STRUCTURE BRO

If the Egyptians can move Abu Simbel in the 1960s I assure Indians could have moved Babri Masjid in the 1990s. Your implication that moving the temple is impossible is factually incorrect and appears to be geared toward playing a victim rather than seeing the preferred and peaceful path of resolving this.

It is attitudes like yours that cause most human suffering in the world.

[Greed and Death]

You can't move a building. It's literally in the ground. Besides that absolutely nothing justifies the majority "taking things into their own hands" against a minority like this, especially with recent events in India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Simbe ... Relocation
The building was literally built by a conquering apartheid state for the explicit purpose of genocide.

Wow we are on the same page.