Historic Hindu Temple Inaugurated in India on site of Mosque

[Bombadil]

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.


>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.

There's really very little evidence the original site was considered the birthplace of Rama, it's not like it was Mecca where Indians made pilgrimages to the spot, it was a local temple. The idea it was super holy arose in the 19th century by Hindu nationalists.

The entire issue is around Hindu nationalism.

[Greed and Death]

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.

Yes it would have been preferable for a peaceful resolution where the Hindus got their holy site back and Muslims have their temple moved preferably at state expense or BJP expense.

[Bombadil]

..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.

Yes it would have been preferable for a peaceful resolution where the Hindus got their holy site back and Muslims have their temple moved preferably at state expense or BJP expense.

What about the Buddhists?

Many critics also claim that the present-day Ayodhya was originally a Buddhist site, based on its identification with Saketa described in Buddhist texts. According to historian Romila Thapar, ignoring the Hindu mythological accounts, the first historic mention of the city dates back to the 7th century, when the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang described it as a Buddhist site.

[New haven america]

Have they considered, like, not fucking building anything there?

Hell, Indian Muslims are like some of the chillest Muslims there are, and if they're annoyed about this then you know you done fucked up.

[Greed and Death]

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.

There's really very little evidence the original site was considered the birthplace of Rama, it's not like it was Mecca where Indians made pilgrimages to the spot, it was a local temple. The idea it was super holy arose in the 19th century by Hindu nationalists.

The entire issue is around Hindu nationalism.

The Mecca was a pagan worship site it was only Muslim nationalist that made it a place of worship in the 7th century.

They view it as a holy site now and have for over a century.

It is time to accept the Temple of Rama, and those who resist have no place in India.

[Aclion]

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.

There's really very little evidence the original site was considered the birthplace of Rama, it's not like it was Mecca where Indians made pilgrimages to the spot, it was a local temple. The idea it was super holy arose in the 19th century by Hindu nationalists.

The entire issue is around Hindu nationalism.

No. The entire issue is that muslims are being salty that they can't engage in their old game of demolishing other religions houses of worship and plopping trophy mosques on the sites to prevent them being rebuild by the people with an actual claim to the site.

[Greed and Death]

Yes it would have been preferable for a peaceful resolution where the Hindus got their holy site back and Muslims have their temple moved preferably at state expense or BJP expense.

What about the Buddhists?

Many critics also claim that the present-day Ayodhya was originally a Buddhist site, based on its identification with Saketa described in Buddhist texts. According to historian Romila Thapar, ignoring the Hindu mythological accounts, the first historic mention of the city dates back to the 7th century, when the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang described it as a Buddhist site.

If and when the Buddhist in India make a demand for the temple then that should be considered based upon their representation in the local community.

[Greed and Death]

Have they considered, like, not fucking building anything there?

Hell, Indian Muslims are like some of the chillest Muslims there are, and if they're annoyed about this then you know you done fucked up.

Then move them to Pakistan and be done with it.

[Free Indian States]

Well, the Muslims were given another plot of land to rebuild he mosque, so well, that answers the two ANs.

[Bombadil]

There's really very little evidence the original site was considered the birthplace of Rama, it's not like it was Mecca where Indians made pilgrimages to the spot, it was a local temple. The idea it was super holy arose in the 19th century by Hindu nationalists.

The entire issue is around Hindu nationalism.

No. The entire issue is that muslims are being salty that they can't engage in their old game of demolishing other religions houses of worship and plopping trophy mosques on the sites to prevent them being rebuild by the people with an actual claim to the site.

Lol.. any religions 'old game'. Destroying temples and building your own is as old as the hills. However this particular issue is prominent mainly driven by Hindu nationalists, and largely made up.. or at least based on very little evidence the original temple was considered anything special beyond a local temple.

[Union of Aryavart]

Jai Shree Ram Bois

[Free Indian States]

No. The entire issue is that muslims are being salty that they can't engage in their old game of demolishing other religions houses of worship and plopping trophy mosques on the sites to prevent them being rebuild by the people with an actual claim to the site.

Lol.. any religions 'old game'. Destroying temples and building your own is as old as the hills. However this particular issue is prominent mainly driven by Hindu nationalists, and largely made up.. or at least based on very little evidence the original temple was considered anything special beyond a local temple.

Well, Ram's birthplace has been mentioned as Ayodhya in all versions of the Ramayan, plus idols were found by archeologists when they excavated the site. Even if the original temple was nothing more than a local one, the place itself is still revered by Hindus to this day.

[Orostan]

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.

doesn't matter, don't destroy a hundred year old piece of history if you can avoid it. If it's a monument to genocide make that clear to people who visit it, but don't destroy it if it can be avoided.

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.


>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.

They moved that temple to prevent it from being destroyed by flooding. They destroyed that mosque for nationalistic hatred.

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.

There's really very little evidence the original site was considered the birthplace of Rama, it's not like it was Mecca where Indians made pilgrimages to the spot, it was a local temple. The idea it was super holy arose in the 19th century by Hindu nationalists.

The entire issue is around Hindu nationalism.

oh hey i was more correct than i thought i was.

[The Hindustani State]

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.

The Babri Masjid was a symbol of oppression of Hindus and was built purely out of hate. Again, why should the birthplace of Rama stay neutral?

[The Hindustani State]

Yes it would have been preferable for a peaceful resolution where the Hindus got their holy site back and Muslims have their temple moved preferably at state expense or BJP expense.

What about the Buddhists?

Many critics also claim that the present-day Ayodhya was originally a Buddhist site, based on its identification with Saketa described in Buddhist texts. According to historian Romila Thapar, ignoring the Hindu mythological accounts, the first historic mention of the city dates back to the 7th century, when the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang described it as a Buddhist site.

The Buddhists are supporting the Hindu temple

[Bombadil]

Muslims in India aren't really typical, it was a Mughal empire, descendants of Ghengis Khan, who typically just integrated themselves into the society they conquered, like Kublai Khan in China and various other Khanates. It's the Hindus who made this all a massive religious issue.

The BJP were involved in the destruction as a vote grabbing technique, a technique they've used to rise to power across India, it's not necessarily something to be encouraged. Ultimately an illegal tearing down and the ensuing violence has been rewarded by legally rebuilding as a temple.

[Gurkha Nepal]

Jai Shree Ram! सियावर रामचंद्र की जय!

Greetings from Nepali Hindu

[Gurkha Nepal]

Jai Shree Ram Bois

Same to you

Lol.. any religions 'old game'. Destroying temples and building your own is as old as the hills. However this particular issue is prominent mainly driven by Hindu nationalists, and largely made up.. or at least based on very little evidence the original temple was considered anything special beyond a local temple.

Well, Ram's birthplace has been mentioned as Ayodhya in all versions of the Ramayan, plus idols were found by archeologists when they excavated the site. Even if the original temple was nothing more than a local one, the place itself is still revered by Hindus to this day.

Yes every single mention of Ram’s birthplace has been Ayodhya, he was a prince of the Raghu dynasty and son of Dasharata Maharaja. Gautama Buddha is also descended from the Raghu dynasty, which is a part of the greater Suryavanshi Rajput dynasty

[Bombadil]

Jai Shree Ram Bois

Same to you

Well, Ram's birthplace has been mentioned as Ayodhya in all versions of the Ramayan, plus idols were found by archeologists when they excavated the site. Even if the original temple was nothing more than a local one, the place itself is still revered by Hindus to this day.

Yes every single mention of Ram’s birthplace has been Ayodhya, he was a prince of the Raghu dynasty and son of Dasharata Maharaja. Gautama Buddha is also descended from the Raghu dynasty, which is a part of the greater Suryavanshi Rajput dynasty

Ayodha yes, this specific temple, not particularly, you think there's only ever been one temple in Ayodha, or that any of them were specifically the actual birthplace?

[Greed and Death]

Jai Shree Ram Bois

Same to you

Well, Ram's birthplace has been mentioned as Ayodhya in all versions of the Ramayan, plus idols were found by archeologists when they excavated the site. Even if the original temple was nothing more than a local one, the place itself is still revered by Hindus to this day.

Yes every single mention of Ram’s birthplace has been Ayodhya, he was a prince of the Raghu dynasty and son of Dasharata Maharaja. Gautama Buddha is also descended from the Raghu dynasty, which is a part of the greater Suryavanshi Rajput dynasty

If anything this talk of Ayodhya not being the birthplace of Rama is clearly just designed to provoke a Hindu over action. If anything they will have no one to blame but themselves coming pushback from the Hindu community.

[The Hindustani State]

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.

There's really very little evidence the original site was considered the birthplace of Rama, it's not like it was Mecca where Indians made pilgrimages to the spot, it was a local temple. The idea it was super holy arose in the 19th century by Hindu nationalists.

The entire issue is around Hindu nationalism.

This is not true, I have no idea where you are getting all of this from, but every single version of Sage Valmiki’s Ramayana specifically denotes Ayodhya as the birthplace of Rama.

सूतमागधसंबाधां श्रीमातीमतुलप्रभाम् |
उच्चाट्टालध्वजवतीं शतघ्नीशतसंकुलाम् || १-५-११

Translation: She that prosperous city Ayodhya is muchly crammed with many a eulogist and panegyrist, yet she is highly splendorous with many a bastion, flag and hundreds of batteries of canons, and Dasharatha dwells therein.

दुर्गगंभीरपरिखां दुर्गामन्यैर्दुरासदाम् |
वाजिवारणसपूर्णां गोभिरुष्ट्रैः खरैस्तथा || १-५-१३

Translation: That Ayodhya is an impassable one for trespassers, or for others invaders, owing to her impassable and profound moats, and she is abounding with horses, camels, likewise with cows and donkeys.

चित्रामष्टापदाकारां वरनारीगणैर्युताम् |
सर्वरत्नसमाकीर्णां विमानगृहशोभिताम् || १-५-१६

Translation: Amazing is Ayodhya for its lay-out is like a game board called aSTapadi, and with its flocks of beautiful women moving thereabout, where all kinds of precious gems are heaped up, and where its seven storied buildings are picturesque. [1-5-16]

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baa ... _frame.htm

[The Hindustani State]

Jai Shree Ram! सियावर रामचंद्र की जय!

Greetings from Nepali Hindu

Jai Shree Ram brother

[Free Indian States]

Same to you


Yes every single mention of Ram’s birthplace has been Ayodhya, he was a prince of the Raghu dynasty and son of Dasharata Maharaja. Gautama Buddha is also descended from the Raghu dynasty, which is a part of the greater Suryavanshi Rajput dynasty

Ayodha yes, this specific temple, not particularly, you think there's only ever been one temple in Ayodha, or that any of them were specifically the actual birthplace?

Heh yes, now if you try to look for the exact place of birth, there'll be people saying it's meaningless to search as Ram is just mythology.

Anyways, even if Ram existed, it would be next to impossible to find the exact location of birth, considering how much the texts and even facts have been altered over the ages.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Dang the history of the site is terrible.

Communal riots between Hindus and Muslims occurred across India immediately following demolition of the mosque. Rioting in the immediate aftermath resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2,000 people. Six weeks of riots further erupted in Bombay, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 900 people.

Jihadist outfits like Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba have cited the demolition of Babri Masjid as justification for attacks directed against India. Gangster Dawood Ibrahim, wanted in India for his alleged ties to the 1993 Bombay bombings which killed 257 people, is believed to have been infuriated by the Babri Masjid's demolition.

[Bombadil]

Ayodha yes, this specific temple, not particularly, you think there's only ever been one temple in Ayodha, or that any of them were specifically the actual birthplace?

Heh yes, now if you try to look for the exact place of birth, there'll be people saying it's meaningless to search as Ram is just mythology.

Anyways, even if Ram existed, it would be next to impossible to find the exact location of birth, considering how much the texts and even facts have been altered over the ages.

Well quite, next to nothing is known about the temple factually. Nor is much known about the construction of the mosque, nationalists would have you believe it was part of Aurangzeb's zeal but there's no evidence he ordered it built and there's more evidence it wasn't even built in his reign.

The entire narrative around this is purely for nationalistic ends, the mosque was a beautiful construction acoustically designed so you could whisper at one end and hear at the other, likely built over a typical temple if not a ruin and now destroyed for political means.

It is what it is, but I don't feel we should be encouraging violence and destruction in this way, what about other mosques in India, seems the path has been set for a few more mob riots.