Indian court divides holy site

Indian court divides holy site

english.aljazeera.net

A disputed Indian holy site in the ancient city of Ayodhya claimed by both Muslims and Hindus is to be divided among three religious groups, a court has ordered on Thursday
The judges gave control of the main disputed section of the site, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus. Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and another Hindu sect.

Authorities in India tightened security across the country in advance of the ruling, with the police arresting more than 7,000 people

(visit the link for the full news article)

Authorities in India tightened security across the country in advance of the ruling, with the police arresting more than 7,000 people

sounds like it could get pretty heated over there and such a huge arrest of people before the ruling,
and what perfect timing right when the Commonwealth games are on

english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

i think the court just took the pee.
why would they do something like that...do they looking for trouble????

of course the local muslims would feel the court crossed the line and made a judgement where they actually have no logical reason to make this judgement.

if its a prior site to muslims...then why would the sikhs want to be that close to them anyway lol

its a joke that a court would do such a thing

It seems a perennial flaw of mankind that we are willing to hurt each other over 'holy' locations.... as if the fulfillment of spiritual desires were dependent on specific 'places' - almost explicitly 'marrying' the material to the spiritual. I seems to me that the whole point of spirituality is to reject the dependence on the material....

Oh well, there's no accounting for cultural traditionalism.... or the lust of violence that materialism evokes.

Originally posted by Maxmars
It seems a perennial flaw of mankind that we are willing to hurt each other over 'holy' locations.... as if the fulfillment of spiritual desires were dependent on specific 'places' - almost explicitly 'marrying' the material to the spiritual. I seems to me that the whole point of spirituality is to reject the dependence on the material....

Oh well, there's no accounting for cultural traditionalism.... or the lust of violence that materialism evokes.

do you know that the sikhs are a warrior race...who do they fight???...well who are they picking a fight with here...?

reply to post by theAymen


well sikhs are not involved...
1/3 rd of the land including the part which was central dome goes to hindus[bec archeological survey of india found a massive temple beneath destroyed mosque]
1/3 rd to muslims because from last 450 years they had a mosque there...
1/3rd to nirmohi akhada..I presume they are jains[a different religion]..because even they concider this site holy.

So court has played safe...

But according to me whole land should have been given to hindus bec Archeological survey has pointed the existance of a massive temple in that site..

I would not refer to it as a verdict.....more like a compromise. India needs to overhaul its dysfunctional judicial system, for a decision should judiciously be corroborated on facts alone, regardless of religious sentiments.

The decision is rather ironical for it shows the proclivity of the bench to lean towards "religion" and "faith" for those who take the law into their own hands while condoning an open defiance of the country's constitution.





[

reply to post by Drsham


but islam is a relatively new religon...also if they could hold onto a mosque through the 90s 80s 70s etc why would you attempt to take it now ???

the pakistanis started there own country due to issues like these ....why not try and take half of pakistan...they were there before them as well !!

reply to post by theAymen


look man...ayodha is for hindus what mecca is for muslims and vatican for catholics..
Muslims/mughals mostly under aurangazeb had destroyed all our main temples ,,all of them..
The birth place of lord krishna in mathura was torn down to build a mosque which stands even now..we have built one temple besides it..
Temple in varanasi was torn down to build a mosque..we built one more besides it..
Our puri jagannath temple looted innumerable times..our somanath temple torn down 7 times in 1000 years all by muslim invaders..the initial temple was concidered jyothirlinga..the shiva linga was broken into pieces and put in the step of some mosque in afghanisthan..the last time it was torn down by aurangazeb and he built a mosque in that site..But soon after independence indian govt built it in the same site by transferrin the mosque from that site...
I dunno why every one expects hindus to be peacefull & tollerant..Read about hindu percecution by muslims & portugese you will know our pain..
And what i say is during partition all of the muslims should have moved to pakistan there wouldnt be any problems...I blame Gandhi for what ever is happening communally in india now..

Originally posted by Leonardo01
I would not refer to it as a verdict.....more like a compromise. India needs to overhaul its dysfunctional judicial system, for a decision should judiciously be corroborated on facts alone, regardless of religious sentiments.

The decision is rather ironical for it shows the proclivity of the bench to lean towards "religion" and "faith" for those who take the law into their own hands while condoning an open defiance of the country's constitution.

What you are suggesting would not be "justice" but would in fact be the opposite of justice and would lead to massive upheaval and utter chaos.

It has nothing to do with India's "dysfunctional justice system", (which justice system is not dysfunctional ?? ) rather it has to do with the sentiments of the parties involved. Constitutions are the written law of man, they don't hold a candle when you put them up against articles of faith to test people's resolve.

Besides, it more complex than just faith. There is great passion from both sides on this issue. This kind of problem is not exclusively the preserve of India but even in Israel a similar situation exists. The great thing about the Indians is that they have taken this to the courts to solve. At first glance that might seem absurd since faith and religion cannot be substantiated by the cold calculus of reason and fact but courts serve a much more primary purpose as well - that being of conflict resolution by impartial adjudication. If anything, this case shows the strength of the Indian judiciary and the high regard it is held in by the people of India.

If facts alone are to be considered, then a machine can serve as a judge/jury and attorney. The law is about people, without humanity, the rule of law is just despotism.

Originally posted by theAymen
reply to post by Drsham

 

but islam is a relatively new religon...also if they could hold onto a mosque through the 90s 80s 70s etc why would you attempt to take it now ???

the pakistanis started there own country due to issues like these ....why not try and take half of pakistan...they were there before them as well !!

A strawman argument at best!

Islam might be new, just like Nazism is "new" but that doesn't mean that the Jews could just have walked out of the concentration camps whenever they felt like it could they ?

Islam went everywhere through the tip of a sword. If everybody in the world were to "reclaim" from Islam, all the Muslims would be driven back into the deserts of Arabia .

Further, you are factually incorrect in saying that the Muslims held on to the mosque in the 70s, 80s and the 90s. The earliest attempt to redress the issue was actually when the Marathas were on the verge of defeating the Mughals and wresting back control of the disputed site. Unfortunately the British beat them to it and the issue died then and there. The earliest known attempt at a legal settlement was in the 1880s under British law. Soon after independence, Hindu groups tried to retake the temple and planted idols inside it. Since then it has been a contentious area. It is due to the democratic and secular nature of India that the mosque was allowed to stand for so many decades mostly unmolested. For had it been a Hindu temple in Pakistan, it would have been promptly raised to the ground with their government's full support.If you want ownership to be a contest of might, than that would be a far easier problem to solve for hindu groups that want to resort to violence and seize the property rather than yield to popular consensuses to solve it through legal means. .

reply to post by IAF101


The verdict is ostensibly a failure on many counts and also smacks of being partisan. Apparently the bench acquiesces that the law shall feign ignorance whilst zealots can openly defy the constitution.

The bench has failed to grasp the crux of the problem; which is the illegal razing of a century old site and this regardless of sanctimonious religious ideals. Albeit inadvertently,it has set a bad precedent for it blatantly condones the acts of a mindless horde.

Justice does not succumb to arbitrary notions or foolish conjectures of misguided individuals and thus the verdict is a failure.

reply to post by Leonardo01


Actually, that matter was never in contention before the High Court. That is a common misconception. The issue before the court was to the ownership of the property, irrespective of its immediate history and that was what they ruled on. No where in their judgments, do they condone those who raised the structure but deal with the original grievance that the parties to the property held- that of ownership.

If the matter was never put before the court, how can they pass judgment on it, doing so would be a "failure" of jurisprudence and would indeed be "partisan".