Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

Arts & Culture History
1

I was going through this article which discuss the archeological details of Rama Mandir and Babri Masjid. It shows us a pro Muslim view. Any further material supporting this view or against this is welcomed.

1949 On December 23rd, Muslims finished their night prayer and left to their home. A shock was waiting for them, who came for fajr prayer. Inside the Mosque a mob kept Rama, Laxamana, Sita statues and claimed that their God took avatar (appeared) inside the mosque and they started agitating against innocent Muslims

An FIR was filed at faizabad police station. Afterwards central and state government banned Muslims to conduct prayer inside the mosque and this became one of the important issue in Indian history.

Then Innocent Hindu’s mind were brain-washed with hatred feeling against Muslims by spreading a false propaganda that “Babri Majid was built by demolishing Ram Temple”

If the propaganda of Saffron Group ” Babri majid was built after demolishing Ram Temple” is true then no Muslims will fight for this issue. Because in Islam, demolishing other religious Temple is strictly prohibited. Due to their false claim about Ram Temple, Muslims are fighting to get back their mosque.

We don’t want to divert the subject by exposing the comment of Chatterji, AK majumdhar, Nehru that RAM is an imaginary character.
Because the subject is to discuss by doing research whether any Ram temple exists in the disputed location ? Whether Majid was built in that location by demolishing Ram temple? Not about the existence of Ram or whether it is imaginary character or not!!!

Even Ram is an imaginary character; no Muslims will accept the demolition of Ram temple and build a mosque in that location.

Was Ram born at Ayodhya ?
We’ll see how the claim of Ram born in that disputed location will be true.

Whatever the decision Hindus want to take, it should not be fundamentally taken from the comment of RSS or any other saffron organization. It should be taken from Hindus Vedas and Purunas. In fact, it would be opposite to Hindu ideology, if some decision taken apart from this jurisdiction of Vedas.

Valmiki wrote first about Ram and his words explained everything about Ram in crystal clear format. Valmiki explained in his Ramayana that he born at DHIREDHA Yuga.

A basic measurement unit of time, to denote the Hindu’s belief of time is Yuga. There are four Yugas.

Kirudha yuga 17,28,000 ( 17 lakhs, 28 thousands ) years
Dhiredha Yuga 12,96,000 ( 12 lakhs, 96 thousand) years
Duvaba Yuga 8,64,000 ( 8 lakhs, 64 thousand ) years
Kali Yuga 4,32,000 ( 4 lakhs, 32 thousand ) years

Now we are living in the time of Kali Yuga. Kali Yuga starts before 3102 years of Christ. Now 2009 finished after Christ. So 5110 years finished after kali yuga starts.

Duvaba yuga was before Kali Yuga and Ram didn’t born during this time. Before this was Dhiredha Yuga and even Ram born during last stage of this Yuga and according to Valmiki Ramayana’s Judgment ” Ram should have born before 8,69,110 years ( 8,64,000 + 5110 )
Like Valmiki Ramayana told about Ram’s Yuga, he specified the birth place too that is “He born at Ayodhya city “

That means ” Ayodhya” should exists before 8 Lakhs, 64 thousand years. A report was submitted on 1976, 77 by central government archeological department regarding ” when Ayodhya appeared?”. This report in its 52, 53 page explained that “A place name called Ayodhya in which people started dwelling was before 700 BC.

That means, before 2708 years, there would be no Ayodhya according to their archeological research.

Afterwards this was re-researched by C.P.Lal and K.N Theetjit , a notable historian. They also found that it was true whatever the archeological department found.

Valmiki told that Ram born before 8 lakhs 69 thousand years at Ayodhya, but it is crystal clear that there was nothing called Ayodhya at that time.
How Hindus can conclude by neglecting Ramayana and archeological finding?

The age of this Ayodhya is 2708 years. But this is not the one explained by Ramayana. May be it is in different place. It is general to find many places in the same name. By considering these facts, they have to come for conclusion, which will not contradict with Ramayana and research facts.

There is lot of testimonials in Ramayana that Ram born at Ayodhya which is different from the existing one.

While speaking about Ayodhya, Ramayana spoke about Sarayu River. Sarayu River exists 1.5 yojan distances from Ayodhya. (1.5 yojan means 23 kilometers). Even though there’s one river called Sarayu at Ayodhya, it’s running inside the city, not 23 kilometers away from the city. That means, Ayodhya and Sarayu River told by Ramayana is not the existing one. Ramayana teachings will be correct when you believe Sarayu River flows 23 kilometers away from Ayodhya. **(This seems to me a flawed argument, as we all know rivers do change their route over the years and 23 kilo meters over such a long period is not a big deal) **
People are simply neglecting Hinduism, if they consider existing Ayodhya is same like Ayodhya explained in Ramayana.

**Also Valmiki Ramayana explains that “ Sarayu River join with Ganga”. But this Sarayu River mingles with Raabthi River. What we learnt from this? Ramayana doesn’t denote this Ayodhya and Sarayu river. Also Valmiki Ramaya explains Sarayu river flows from east to west. But Sarayu river in UP flow from west to east. A researcher, Saer Singh Identified a truth. There is one Ayodhya at Nepal. 20 kilometers away from that city one river is flowing from east to west. Also it mingles with Ganga. So, those who believe Ram born at Ayodhya, which is at Uttarpradesh, are neglecting Ramayana and its ideology. ****(This is a strong argument needs futher deliberation)
**

Real Ayodhya should be one, which was explained by the Ramayana with all testimonials.

was Ram temple existed at Ayodhya ?

Babar Majid was build at 1528. We’ll see whether any truth present with the opinion of ” Mir Baahi” a minister of Baber, who was accused for demolishing Ram Temple in the disputed location”

RSS claimed that Ram temple was built by king Vikramathithya. Vikramathidya is general name like Chola,Pandya kings. Chandra Gupta, samutra Gupta kings are called in the name of Vikramathidya.

They contradict in specifying the actual king who really built the Ram temple. There is not fact in their claim.

Gupta kings ruled some part of U.P during the period 300 AD to 1100 AD. These kings who ruled for 800 years are called as Vikramathidya.
During the period 300 AD to 1100 AD, there was not even a smell of human at Ayodhya, according to the chief of Indian Archeological department.
P.P Lal who submitted research report and was published at famous magazines” The Week” (25.02.1990) and “Sunday Times” (20.11.1987 ). In that report, after showing several evidences, he was confidently explained that, at Ayodhya during that period of 300 – 1100 AD, there was no human, building, temple or anything.

In some place, which is untouched by human, how can they build a temple? How Baber can demolish a temple which was not existed?

When Ram was worshipped as God?

If temple to be built for Ram, it should be built after Ram was worshipped as God. Now Hindus are worshiping Ram as God, but they didn’t do it before. Ram was not considered as God, Especially during the period of 300-1100 AD, which was claimed by RSS, the time when Ram temple was built.

Amar Simha of AD 600, released many Sanskrit Poetry resources in the name of ” Amara Kosa”. In that, those who are worshipped as God in India were specified. Ram name was not in the list. So Hindus during that period were not considering Ram as GOD’s Avatar and its considered as big testimonial.

**A Sadhu called Lakhsmidhar, collected the information of all sacred place up to 11th century (until last time of Gupta Dynasty). Ayodhya Ram temple is not existed in that.
**
If Ram temple was build during Gupta period, why it was not included in the list of sacred place?

Same like that, S.S.Iyer , a notable research scholar, published book called ” Indian Temples, Historic notes”. He didn’t specify anything about Ram temple. He noted five temples which was built by Vikramathidya. Ayodhya Ram temple is not there.

At 1989 November 12, IAS officer Ramachandra Kadri wrote one article at “Radiance”. He referred so many evidences with Encyclopedia like Britannica and comment that only after 1100 AD, Ram was worshipped as God.

That means, until the last period of Gupta kings, Ram was not worshipped as God. Can any Hindu who has real conscience, believe that Ram temple was build during the Gupta period?

If we want to tell more clearly, Valmiki wrote Ramayana in Sanskrit. Sanskrit was not popularly spoken by all people and only Brahmins knew about that. Because of this Ram was not considered as God.

Valmiki Ramayana was translated and released in Hindi by Tulsi Das. After that, Ramayana was very famous among people. After Tulsi Das translated Ramayana in Hindi, people start considering Ram as God’s Avatar. What’s the time of Tulsi Das ? Tulsi Das Lived during the period of Baber (in Ayodhya ), which was claimed for demolition of Ram temple. Baber ruled during 1500 AD and Tulsi was living under that rule. Ramayana was translated in Hindi during the rule of Baber and that time Ram was not considered as God. So it becomes true that Hindu people didn’t have any knowledge about him.
**
How Ram was worshiped as GOD when Ramayana was not spread across people? How temple was build for him?
**
More arguments

India’s first president was Dr. Radha Krishnan. His son Gopal who was good Hindu devotee and very good research scholar too. In his research article, he proclaimed that “There was no temple for Ram before 1750 AD, in any part of India. **He confidently declared that “All Ram temple belongs to 18th century”.
**
if Ram temple was not existed before 200 years, how Baber demolish Ram temple at Disputed location of Ayodhya.**The truth is, the foundation of Babri Majid was laid by Ibrahim Lodi, on 1524. He was unable to continue the service for long time and he was killed in war by Baber. Then, Baber build a Majid, with the foundation laid by Ibrahim Lodi. So it is untrue to tell that Baber demolished the temple.

**d

Will Baber Demolish temple ?
So far, the evidences provided here is enough for everyone, who can really able to distinguish between good and bad. For debate purpose, even though if any temple was there in the disputed location, Baber would not demolish that.

**Because, in same Ayothya, for five temples like Hunumangiri ,Jenmasthan, Baber provided incentives by writing in brass . This been safeguarded still now by temple management and was reiterated with evidences by Ramrasha Thiribathi.
**
How a person will demolish a temple, who provided incentives to many temples?

Also the population of Muslims during Baber reign would be meager when compared with present population. Sovereignty of the kingdom will be maintained only by the support of majority Hindus. Baber would be thrown-out from his throne, by agitators of Hindu Majority, if their temple was demolished. No king will be involved in such activities, if he really wants to retain his power.

Hindus during that time were not involved in any riots or agitation, but only welcomed all Mughal heirs like Babar, his son Humayun, his son Akbar. This shows the courtesy and kindness were showered by Mughal emperors towards Hindu majority.

During the last time of Baber, he wrote one WILL to his son Humayun written in Persian language and it is been preserved still today at Central government’s National museum at Delhi. In that he gave advise as “Dear son, you are going to rule a country where Hindus are in majority. They are respecting COW as God. So don’t eat Cow’s meat (Beef) at any instance.

How a Good Citizen can believe that Baber demolished a temple, who advised his son to renounce the eating habit of Cow’s meat (beef)?

Guru Nanak who founded Sikh religion was considered as big enemy during Baber’s reign. He rigorously opposed Baber, especially for the issues related with women. If Baber demolished the temple, he would have indicated that with his strong resentment. But history commenting that he went to Ayodhya and enjoyed the beauty of Babri Majid’s Structure.

Person like him who lived in those years only knew that whether Baber constructed Majid by demolishing temple. In such case, he would never enjoy its building structure.

Some falsely imagine and claim that people didn’t oppose the rule because of Babar’s tyrant nature.

Baber was neither hated by Hindu people nor was he was a tyrant king. This is the truth. For debate purpose, if we consider Baber was a tyrant king, it would not be true.

After Baber, his kingdom was ruled by his son Humayun. After 25 years of Baber’s death, his grandson Akbar ruled the kingdom. He gave up Islam and was following New Religion Din-ilahi, for which he was the founder. Akbar was like a Hindu king and even he got appreciation from many
saffron organizations.

If Baber demolished the temple, it should have been noticed by many people who lived during the period of Akbar too. They don’t need to worry about Akbar and they would have asked to rebuild the temple which was demolished by his grandfather. Surely, Akbar would have satisfied such people, if his grandfather would have demolished such structure. People could have requested, only if temple was demolished!!! But there happened no such incidents.

We’ll leave that. Even after the Mughals era was ended by Britishers, this issue was not raised by anyone until 1948. There was no case registered too.
**
In 200 years rule of British:**

**No case was registered during British rule against the demolition of mosque and nobody requested British government to get back their temple. **Problem suddenly rose to its full vigor only after December 23, 1949, when a mob placed Ram idol inside the mosque.

In Ayodhya there are more than 30 Temples which manifest about Ram’s birth place. Hindu scholars identified many places as Ram’s birth place and they didn’t include Babri Majid among them. This was the reality, until saffron group diverted the attention of Hindus by such false claims.

2

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

**
Opposite view on Guru Nanak’s visiting Ayodhya:**

When we reach back in time, what we find particularly interesting are the accounts attributed to Guru Nanak. He was a contemporary of Babar, and an eyewitness to his vandalism. Nanak condemned him in the strongest terms. The historian Harsh Narain in his book The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, writes: “Guru Nanak, according to Bhai Man Singh’s Pothi Janam Sakhi, said to have been composed in 1787 Anno Vikrami/1730 A.D., visited Ayodhya and said to his Muslim disciple Mardana: 'Mardania! eh Ajudhia nagari Sri Ramachandraji ki hai. So, chal, iska darsan kari’e. Translation: ‘Mardana! this Ayodhya city belongs to Sri Ramachandra Ji. So let us have its darsana.’”

This indicates that Nanak visited Ayodhya shortly before the destruction of the Rama temple by Babar. Another work by Baba Sukhbasi Ram gives a similar account, again suggesting that Nanak visited Ayodyha before the temple was destroyed by his contemporary, the Mughal invader Babar.

Muslim sources also give a similar account. In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad for the recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from the Babri Masjid, which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. This Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Oudh. It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was a participant in that Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856, i.e. the year following the failed Jihad. Miza Jan tells us:

“'wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father. **Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, … Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan!” Even more impressive is a Persian text known as *Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa’ih Bahadurshahi *written in 1707 by a granddaughter of the Moghul emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada just cited. Mirza Jan quotes several lines from her work which tell us:

**

**“…keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on 'Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer … and 'keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadhà.”
**
Other Muslim authors than Mirza Jan also cite the work, which appears to have been widely available in the 18th and 19th centuries. Then there is the evidence of the three inscriptions at the site of the mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by Mir Baqi (or Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar. Babar’s Memoir mentions Mir Baqi as his governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription were damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with minor loss. In any event, it was well known long before that, recorded for instance in Mrs. Beveridge’s translation of Babur-Nama published in 1926.

3

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

while i firmly believe it was a barbaric and shameful act to destroy babri masjid, the existance or lack of existance of a temple at the site hardly matters anymore (digs sanctioned by the supreme court of india has indicated rubble from a complex of pre-existing structures). a lot of the older hindu temples have been built on top/or use renovated jain or buddhist temples. the place is not going to be open to any independent digs by archeologists anytime soon, given how sensitive the conclusions can be.

this particular article in the OP is pretty funky - both in terms of the fobby language, and in terms of accuracy of the matters claimed. no better than the stuff the semi-literate monkeys at RSS or VHP come up with; in fact this might just be a reaction to their C-grade propaganda.

the truth of the matter is, religious people are easy prey to propaganda. prior to the saffronists using this as their springboard to national attention, the place was an orgy of hindu-muslim amity - with the shared magic cure-all well water and all that - the kind of stuff that purist muslims would frown upon. within months, there were no muslims left in the town. this is the nature of religiosity and piety in the erstwhile “hindustan,” a society that is fragmented not geographically but structurally. it will be a good while before they can really learn to appreciate each other’s roles in keeping it all together as a functioning society.

interestingly enough, i can easily tell the author is tamil from the way he just can’t get certain consonants right when he writes out names and places. these kind of hindu-muslim issues are unheard of in south india - where islam arrived via arab traders who had friendly ties with the region even prior to their being muslim, but look at how far the poison goes now - fighting over something from 500 years ago in a piece of land you have nothing to do with.

4

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

Ramcharitmanas which actually made Ramayan famous in the region was written by Goswami Tusidas, whose birth is speculated between 1497 to 1532, he was the one who popularized RAMLEELA in the Awadh region. through out his life, not a single incident is ever recorded by him mentioned destruction of any temple, and he can be considered as contemporary of Babar and later he was invited by Akbar to visit the royal court in Fatehpur Sikri

5

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

I have absolutely no idea.

Raghupathi Raghav Raja Ram
Patheetha pawan Sita Ram
Ishwar, Allah, Tero Naam
Sabko Sanmathi dhay Bhagwan

6

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

Get an Idea Southie Uncle :cb:

On a serious note, Eeshwar ek roop anaik. The root of communal conflicts lies in not understanding this message.

7

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

Simple things are often difficult to understand:)

8

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

Well said the kaur. We can understand that general public may be exploited by propaganda and playing with religious emotions, but Allahabad High Court decision on the matter and the behavior / comments of Hon’ble judges to form basis of their decision was also some what controversial which was criticised by historians like Ramila Thapar & others.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C10%5C02%5Cstory_2-10-2010_pg7_30

9

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

Thanks for sharing Muqawee :) I have to read in detail about this issue, I have very strong emotions against those people who destroyed babri masjid.

10

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

^ yes, we should express our resentment for those factors who are behind destruction of any of the religious / historical sites. Be it Babri Masjid or Bamiyan.

11

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

The issue will remain contentious till doomsday. it is about faith and faith runs over logic. Neither it matters to Allah nor to Bhagwan Ram, they both are great enough to pardon. Awadh was the richest land of India, it produced soldier of 1857 revolt, revolutionary capital kanpur is in Awadh. Ramdhaam da puri suhawani, lok samsti bidit ati paavni, dhaari khaani jag jeev apara, avadh tajen tanu nahi sansara. Now Ayodhya is one filthy place devoid of good amenities, what Awadh needs is good governance and better amenities. and case is in SC, so I will abide by that decision.

Nehru envisioned a democratic, socialist, secular, democratic society that has highest tolerant, his views were so impractical that it cost us war with China for helping Dalai Lama, backwards were considered unequals among equals, there is no constitutional and legal discrimination in Nehru’s India. This was direct attack on that idea, My Bhagwan Ram would have never done this.

I have a question, I know mosque cannot be made on illegal obtained places,Saudis demolished many illegal one. supposing that Babar did destroy the temple, is it acceptable to Islam??

12

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

Building Mosques in place of other religious buildings is not taught in Islam. Hazrat Umar (RA) when conuered Palestine, he refused to offer prayers in church, becuase that may lead to buliding of mosque in place of church.

13

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

So it was a political stunt but I have heard Rajiv Gandhi was involved in it.

14

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

there is difference between Hindu temple and Christian church, Christians are Kitabiyas, people of book, Hindus are 24 carat infidel/pagan/kafir. It is nature worshiping religion hence is more similar to Roman paganism. Muslims were always considerate towards all kitabiyas but Hindus weren't always lucky.
It is said Babar offered prayer inside the Ram temple and later on his general desecrated the site. so my question should have been clear.

Yes it was more political than anything, It is secular republic of India, it was not hindu republic ever. that is why we had three Muslim presidents. It is still a country where Jews were never persecuted and Ahmeddiyas still legally call themselves Muslims.
Rajiv gandhi and his brother sanjay gandhi were the real right wingers even though they were of mixed heritage. Sanjay led massive sterilization drive during emergency targeting muslims, as they always had higher growth rate. Rajiv allowed opening of the locks and permitted Hindus to worship there. Hindu right winger "Karsevaks" destroyed the mosque and were taken away from that place and the makeshift temple was made during the night allegedly by congress headed by PV Narsimha Rao.Entire central machinery allowed riot to happen. Now the very same congress is considered "secular and savior of Muslims".

15

Re: Babri Masjid - Archeological & Historical View

The Prophet and his companions (including 4 Khulafa e Rashideen) always shown tolerance to all th religions. Muslims have to deal with all the religions including Pagans of Makkah. If they show tolerance towards ahl e kitab (Jews and chiristians), they were also taught not to say bad things about the gods of pagans lest they replied with bad words about Allah. The idols from Kaba were removed at the time of conquest of Makkah, as Islam has reached its pinnacle in the area and people had accepted the reality of Islam.

We don't find any instances of converting Hindu religious buildings into mosques with the conquest of Sindh by Arabs even Mehmood Ghaznavi who destroyed Somnath did not converted it to a mosque. It may be argued that either his purpose was not to spread Islam (which is also the case with Babar) or he had not to stay in India for long (as is the case with Babar).

The phenomon of converting sacred buildings of one religion into the other was also evident during Indo-Pak partition. In Karachi, the famous Araam Bagh was a sacred place for Hindus then known as 'Rama Bagh'.

Considering the moderate policies of Mughals (especially Akbar) and the will of Babar regarding cow eating, there were chances that if there was such destuction of a temple, we must have known Hindu agitation and plea for reviving the status of temple from Mughal History.