British government records compiled by the Faizabad district gazetteer declared that the Babri structure stood on the debris of the Ram Janmasthan temple demolished by Babar in 1528. Muslims too have testified that a mosque built by displacing any temple would not have “sanctity in the eyes of Sharia”. – A. Seshagiri Rao
The much-awaited Allahabad High Court judgment may not solve the Ayodhya imbroglio if the losing party moves the apex court. In fact, the Hindus stood their ground, harangued that the courts have no jurisdiction over their sentimental and religious issues. But the Muslims banked on the ‘title deed’ case to deliberately block the construction of the Ram temple.
However, most of the mosques built by Muslim invaders stand on disputed land. And also according to Shariah there are theological-juristic rulings to the effect that ‘no mosque can be built on land grabbed or illegally acquired’ (the great Fatwa Alamgiri, vol 6, page 214). But did they follow the diktat and apply for the land ‘acquired’ in ‘jihad’ as well? The answer is ‘no’.
The Prophet made it clear that all land belongs to God or himself and through the Prophet to Muslims. Ibn Taymiyya, the 14th century theologian and jurist, argued that ‘jihad’ simply bestows land on the Muslims to whom they rightly belong. Shaik Ali Hazin quoted the Persian couplet “Bimin Karamat–I mars aly Shaik: Ki chun kharab shawad khanah-I Khuda garded (O Shaik just witness the miracle house of idols, which when desecrated or demolished becomes the house of god, a mosque!”
British government records compiled by the Faizabad district gazetteer declared that the Babri structure stood on the debris of the Ram Janmasthan temple demolished by Babar in 1528. Muslims too have testified that a mosque built by displacing any temple would not have “sanctity in the eyes of Sharia”.
In an application filed on November 30, 1858, by Muhammad Askar, Kahatib and Muazzin to initiate legal proceedings against Bairagian–I Janmasthan, they mentioned that the place Janmasthan had been lying in disorder and the Hindus for hundreds of years performed worship there (Sayyid Sahabuddin Abdur Rahman; Babri Masjid; Darul Mussanifin, Shibli Acadamy, 1987, page 19).
The second document is the Hadiqah-I Shuhada by one Mirja Jan. He said that wherever they found Hindu temples the Muslim rulers destroyed them. He participated in the jihad led by Amir Ali Shah’s regime in 1855 to capture Hanuman Garhi. The Janmasthan temple is the principal place of Rama’s incarnation and adjacent to it is the Sita ki Rasoi (Rafis Ahmed Jafari: Wajid Ali Shah Un-ka ahd, Lucknow, Kitab manjil, 1957).
This was how many Muslims themselves have testified. The factual and historical truth remains that that Mir Baki, at the behest of Babar, demolished the temple and under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Musa Ashiqan built a mosque over it.
This irrefutable evidence should have clinched the issue of demolition versus non-existence of the Ram temple. But regrettably the Muslims clung to the ‘title deed’ that was held by Mohammad Aslam Bhure. The ‘title deed’ case is nothing but a stalling tactic to deny their rightful claim over the Janmasthan site, the Hindus aver.
The ‘title deed’ can be compared to any encroachment in which the ‘encroached’ owner sold it or transferred to another by registering the sale deed. The Hindus question how the authorities could refuse to hand over the ‘undisputed site’ which has nothing to with the ‘title deed’ case?
Further they assert that faith transcends law, rationalism and scientific evidence. And faith does not demand any proof nor could it be verified as it rests only on beliefs. Will they tell us why the Jews and Arabs are fighting over Jerusalem? For the Jews it is sacred because at Mount Moriah, where Prophet Abraham sacrificed his son, the first temple was built by king Solomon.
The Muslims also claimed the very spot and built Al Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock and assert that it is their third most important holy place after Mecca and Medina because of Prophet Mohammad’s journey to the throne of god. But is there any historical evidence of this? When these people fight for their ‘rights’ based on faith in other parts of the world, should they not respect the sentiments and faith of Hindus?
If the court nullifies the ‘title deed’ and adjudicates that indeed a ‘temple had existed beneath the demolished structure’, the Muslims should gracefully honour it, retract, and allow the Ram temple construction at Janmasthan without further litigation as the Hindus had been carrying on worship there and Muslims had stopped namaz there 65 years ago.
Such a gesture from Muslims would go a long way in maintaining peace. They should respect the Hindus’ sentiment and sing “Ram Rahim na judakaro bhai, dilki sachha rakho ji”, which exhorts people not to treat Ram and Rahim as different entities.
» A. Sheshagir Rao is a political analyst based in Chennai.
- The evidence at Ayodhya – N.S. Rajaram
- The Rediif.com Ayodhya-related articles list
- The Ayodhya evidence debate–1 – Koenraad Elst
- The Ayodhya evidence debate–2 – Koenraad Elst
- Hindu Temples: What happened to them, Vol. 1 – Arun Shourie, Harsh Narain, Jay Debashi, Ram Swarup & Sita Ram Goel
- Hindu Temples: What happened to them: The Islamic evidence, Vol. 2 – Sita Ram Goel
- Jihad: The Islamic doctrine of permanent war – Suhas Majumdar
- The legacy of Muslim rule in India – K.S. Lal
Filed under: communalism, culture, fatwa, god, hindu, hinduism, history, india, islam, jihad, koran, media, mohammed, monotheism, rama, religion, secularism | Tagged: ayodhya, babur, conversion, hindu, hindu nation, india, indian history, islam, jihad, koran, mir baqi, mohammad, muslims, national identity, politics, prophetism, ram janmabhumi, religious politics, secularism-nehruism, shariah, sri ram, temple breaking |