India's Supreme Court rules in favour of Hindu temple at centuries-old disputed religious [tr]

UK Daily Mail ^ | November 9, 2019 | William Cole

[C19fan]

India's Supreme Court have today ruled in favour of a Hindu group in a long-running battle over a centuries-old religious site also claimed by Muslims, in a verdict that could raise tension between the two communities. The ruling paves the way for the construction of a Hindu temple on the site in the northern town of Ayodhya, a proposal long supported by Prime Minister Narenrda Modi's ruling Hindu-nationalist party who described the decision as a 'milestone'. The dispute over land ownership has been one of the country's most contentious issues, and was inflamed when the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque was destroyed by Hindu hard-liners in December 1992.

[C19fan]

I remember when Hindus tore down a mosque built on the site Hindus claim Lord Ram was born. A couple of thousand people died in the sectarian violence.

[moovova]

Why would the muslims get a say-so in this anyway? Weren’t they basically kicked out of India in the mid-40’s with the partition?

[Openurmind]

I would be curious if there is any evidence of a Hindu temple under the newer Muslim temple, if so then I think this would be the right decision. From what I understand Muslims like to hijack temple sites and build over them, as did many cultures throughout history including the Romans.

Even more curious is the model of the new planned temple. Why are the steps of the model barricaded off??? lol

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/09/08/20793460-7667439-image-a-18_1573288251453.jpg

[Caipirabob]

Maybe on paper they were kicked out, but the reality is that muslims have a long history of conquest over many parts of India and are heavily present in many, many areas throughout the continent.

From what I saw even in the deepest parts of India there are large muslim communities established centuries ago and tied to the location. The local monuments and historical sites reflect that history. Check out the history of the mogul empire if you want to see where this gets to be a very difficult scenario for India if there is continued conflict between these communities.

I’d like see a growing relationship with India as opposed to the fecal chicoms. Not opposed to the Chinese people but the chicoms are bottom feeding fentanyl pushing scumbags. That being said, India has quite a few internal challenges as it become the modern nation it aspires to be.

[Terry L Smith]

The nation of India is the location of the long-venerated Indus Valley and that associated ages-old history. That history pre-dates a whole bunch of other societies and their religions. I am glad that the Indian national court system made this decision. To have such a rich historically and spiritually, as India, soiled with the putrid stench and puerility of mohameddanism, is a crime of the ages.

[Steven Tyler]

Yep, the mooselimbs earned their reputation. In his travel memoirs about India, the 14th century Moroccan traveller Muhammad Ibn Battuta mentioned crossing into India via the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush. In his Rihla, he mentions these mountains and the history of the range in slave trading.[40][19] Alexander von Humboldt stated that it can be learned from his work that the name only referred to a single mountain pass upon which many Indian slaves died of the cold weather.[41] Battuta wrote, After this I proceeded to the city of Barwan, in the road to which is a high mountain, covered with snow and exceedingly cold; they call it the Hindu Kush, that is Hindu-slayer, because most of the slaves brought thither from India die on account of the intenseness of the cold. — Ibn Batutta, Chapter XIII, Rihla – Khorasan[19]

[2banana]

It is the way of muslims.

Where ever they control, they build a mosque on the spot of the most holiest site of the conqueror nation.

[jjotto]

The Islamic conquest of India is certainly one of the worst mass murders in world history. The numbers are so large as to be unbelievable. Tens of millions up to 100 million or many more were slaughtered. Killing 100,000 at a time was common during different kind of Muslim conquest celebrations.

https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history

[jjotto]

There are more than 200 million Muslims in India.

[jjotto]

That’s why there’s a mosque near the World Trade Center site commemorating their victory.

[Inkie]

Muslims love to claim sites that predate the birth of Mohammed by thousands of years. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem comes to mind.

That being said, no, the Muslims were not all kicked out with partition. India is more tolerant than Pakistan and is home to many other faiths other than Hindus, although Hindus are by far the majority. It’s Muslims by and large are very prosperous and would choose to live in India over Pakistan any day.

India is also home to Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Zoroastrians and other minorities. Find that in any Muslim country you care to name. There are a few Jews left in Morocco who are left alone but any remaining in Iran, Egypt, etc, are badly persecuted, as are Christians.

India is a bastion of tolerance in comparison.

[Wuli]

The decision might be the right one, but that decision will not be the end of it. Whether peacefuly by protest or violently, Muslims and Hindus will continue to contend against each other over the site.

I cannot think of an equivalent in Chirstianity. For me no particular religous site is itself “Holy” nor is G-d to be found there particularly. G-d is always with persons, not with edifices.

[hanamizu]

There are more than 200 million Muslims in India.

---

This is in stark contrast to the 5 1/2 million Hindus in Pakistan. Kind of tells you which nation/religion is more tolerant.

[Tacticalman]

I don’t care much for pagans, but the Satan-worshiping Moslems are even worse. Hope this is the start of India kicking out the Moslems.

[Cronos]

No.

From the 1930s Jinnah and the Muslim league campaigned for a independent land for the subcontinent muslims.

Most muslims didn’t like that idea.

So when jinnah got his Pakistan (present day Pakistan and Bangladesh), 50% of muslims stayed behind as India declared itself a secular Republic, not a hindu state.

[Cronos]

India is not a nation, it is a union of nations.

There is more linguistic and cultural difference between Maharashtra and Kerala than between Ireland and Hungary.

Muslims were in Kerala from the 8th century and came peacefully, as opposed to the Muslim presence in the north which came as invasions.

Incidentally, Christianity came to India in 52 AD, with the apostle Thomas, so Christianity in India may predate christianity in Rome

[SunkenCiv]

The original plan for the Indian union included what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh; the most prominent of the muzzie leaders in India led a separatist movement which resulted in two countries. After a few short wars in which India beat Pakistan each time, so-called E Pakistan threw off the foreign rule and became Bangladesh. India’s own population is north of a billion, of which about 150 million are muzzie — and that’s a substantial fraction of the entire world muzzie population.

[SunkenCiv]

Most of the length of the Indus is in Pakistan. The upper reaches are in Kashmir, which is part of India (although the Paki pseudostate disputes that and sponsors terrorist ops in Kashmir). The headwaters are in China.

[moovova]

I vaguely remember a college history class with the instructor discussing the Partition. There was one comment that stuck with me. He said...in order to reach their new “homeland”, the Muslims were traveling on one direction, the Hindus in the opposite direction...often on the same road....and killing each other along the way.

[dfwgator]

Gandhi was killed because he was thought to be soft on Muslims.