Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html en-gb 30 Tue 03 Mar 2015 17:00:30 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=99#comment134 Another fact is, whenever Islam faces an ideological challenge (after all, majority of monolithic religions are just like a (political) ideologies), whenever someone question its tenants (jokingly or in a serious debate) it tries to shut down the person in a not-so-peaceful way and that process is fully supported by so-called custodians of Islam. As more and more civilized people and scholars (both Muslims and Non-Muslims) avoid taking part in CRITICAL evaluation (not just support or cosmetic criticism)) of a religion, the religion also loses opportunity to reform itself. Gradually it is overwhelmingly dominated by peole with extreme interpretation. Death sentence to Salman Rushdie for his "The Satanic Versus” by Islamic clerics, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (1989) or Danish cartoon episode or barbaric (civil and criminal) laws of many countries that follow “strict” Islamic/Sharia laws (e.g Saudi Arab, Iran, some countries in north and central Africa). When many people think about Islam, they cannot help thinking about those more, than Mirza Galib or AR Rahman or Hamid Ansari. As poverty and illiteracy is spreading in many Islamic nations (in few rare cases, despite of economic development, as in Mid-east); as Islam is coming into contact more with other religions (due to more population increase, immigration and technology) it is facing an unprecedented challenge it never faced before. It is coming under more intense scrutiny. Global terrorism is making it just worse. Sat 02 Oct 2010 23:59:42 GMT+1 Kamal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=98#comment133 @130 Samab Ali Ahmad Says:"I hope one day we all can choose the righteous path and co-exist. Waslaam"I Say: You seem to be good person but Supports wrong Law- Islamic Sharia. I am afraid to say that you are not allowed to be a friend with non muslims and so as per Islam we can not co-exist as stated in following verse:QUR’AN 9:23 “BELIEVERS, TAKE NOT FOR FRIENDS YOUR FATHERS AND YOUR BROTHERS IF THEY LOVE DISBELIEF ABOVE BELIEF. IF YOU DO, YOU DO WRONG. (This verse even not allows a Muslim to be friend with his non muslim close relatives, forget about the non Muslims). But I believe if you are not a true Muslim, than we could co-exist. I would advise you to choose democracy and Secular constitution over sharia and than we all can co-exist. To know more about Islamic sharia, please visit the following site:http: //www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/the-challenge/Rgds Sat 02 Oct 2010 23:47:47 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=97#comment132 Just consider this historical fact and analyse it yourself, “The immigration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD was a defining time in his life and, therefore, in the history of Islam. This move changed Islam from a religious and spiritual revolution into a political movement. In Mecca, he was a priest. He invited converts by preaching, he had one wife and fought against idol worship. In Medina, he was a warrior, converted by force, he had more than 10 wives and fought and killed Christians and Jews”.http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law/criminal-offenses-crimes-against/8899621-1.html Sat 02 Oct 2010 23:38:43 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=97#comment131 @ Samab Ali Ahmad (#118). Question of Hitlar does not arise as second world war was not a religious war. It was purely political and (German) race supremacy. I hope you accept that “race is different than “religion”. In that case, anyone can ask about Islamic-Arab conquests in Asia, part of Europe and Africa (which is still going on). In fact Islam is the ONLY main-stream religion from the very beginning that supported war and killing for “religious” reason and its spread. No “prophet” from any other religion formed an army to fight and force the “enemies” to surrender, from the day one. There was a US national security report “leak” that said, Muslims in southeast Asia (mainly in context to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia) circulated an alleged Al-Quida document advising local Muslims to lay low and have a cordial relationship (with non-Muslim local people) for the time being, till “time is right”. As per their interpretation of Islam, “deceit and temporary submission is fully supported in Islam” to win a bigger battle. Secondly, I told that BOTH Muslim and Christians are responsible for MAJORITY of religious (and political) murders in the world TILL 2nd world war. After that it was mainly Islam. Those two religions (besides Judaism/Jew) originated in the same place, with a same social background/evolution, with similar concept monolithic god and a prophet). I have read Quran (translated in English) and I am sorry to say that I have severe reservation to call that book as “holy” book, to say the least. Although many aspects of Quran depends on interpretation, but in general people (both Muslim and non-Muslims) are not interested to put that verses and language in “religious’ perspective but take that as it is (direct meaning form the language it tells). And that interpretation is not at all any indication of a peace loving religion. Lastly, I am not going into debate into Iraq-Afghanistan war and its political or religious logic. But one thing we all must accept that Hinduism or India is not involved in any way in those. I fully support your statement that , “Truth is aggression is bad doesn't matter where you apply it”. The same logic goes to anyone, including Muslims. And when that truth is not obeyed by someone, s/he MUST face the consequence. I hope you will accept that it is useless to talk the language of Peace to someone who only understand and speak the language of violence. Indian “secular” democracy learned that very late, if at all. Sat 02 Oct 2010 23:30:12 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=96#comment130 @ Samab Ali Ahmad (#118). Question of Hitlar does not arise as second world was not a religious war. It was purely political and (German) race supremacy. In that case, anyone can ask about Islamic-Arab conquests in Asia, part of Europe and Africa (which is still going on).Secondly, I told that BOTH Muslim and Christians are responsible for MAJORITY of religious (and political) murders in the world. Those two religions (besides Judaism/Jew) originated in the same place, with a same social background/evolution, with similar concept monolithic god and a prophet). I have read Quran (translated in English) and I am sorry to say that I have severe reservation to call that book as “holy” book, to say the least. Although many aspects of Quran depends on interpretation, but in general people (both Muslim and non-Muslims) are not interested to put that verses and language in “religious’ perspective but take that as it is (direct meaning form the language it tells). And that interpretation is not at all any indication of a peace loving religion. Lastly, I am not going into debate into Iraq-Afghanistan war and its political or religious logic. But one thing we all must accept that Hinduism or India is not involved in any way in those. I fully support your statement that , “Truth is aggression is bad doesn't matter where you apply it”. The same logic goes to anyone, including Muslims. And when that truth is not obeyed by someone, s/he MUST face the consequence. I hope you will accept that it is useless to talk the language of Peace to someone who only understand and speak the language of violence. Indian “secular” democracy learned that very late, if at all. Sat 02 Oct 2010 23:19:29 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=95#comment129 @ Viku_VPK I can't take this discussion any further because you are questioning the existence which everyone believes including Christians, Jews and Muslims. Now I am sure these numbers will be more than non-believers. I do not need to prove it to you because it is proven and you will know it on the day of resurrection. All I can do is pray for your soul. I hope I have not annoyed anyone and peace to all. I hope one day we all can choose the righteous path and co-exist. Waslaam Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:58:53 GMT+1 Blogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=94#comment128 This post has been Removed Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:49:08 GMT+1 Kamal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=94#comment127 #122 MumeenPlease do not use Al-Taqyiyya (Islamic concept of lying in the cause of Islam) to misguide the BBC Readers as explained in following video : [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]Zakath is an obligation upon Muslims while Jizya is compulsion for (People of Book) which was much higher than Zakath. Since Hindus, Budhist and others(follower of Indian religion) are not the people of Book and thus do not qualify for this Tax and exposed for the following treatment:Qur’an:47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.You should not forget the Johar Custom(Mass suicide) adopted by Rajput Females in order to protect their Pride. (Tabari IX:25 “By Allah, I did not come to fight for nothing. I wanted a victory over Ta’if (unbelievers) so that I might obtain a slave girl from them and make her pregnant.”)Try to learn Islam from Arabic Scholars rather the converted Muslim scholars from South Asia who do not follow sharia in their day to day life and misinterpreted Islam as per their need.. Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:26:26 GMT+1 Blogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=93#comment126 Samab Ali Ahmad, MumeenDodging my quesion? where is the proof of Allah?He is so imaginary that when 4000 people were killed at 9-11 he did not do anything! There are 1000s muslims killed in Pakistan - by muslims - he is not rescuing! Half of muslim population i.e. Women live under oppression of male dominance and nothing happens. If a woman is raped she is stoned to death ! where is he? Israel is dominating the entire middle east where is he? Now some truth pills for youIslam was never peaceful and with ignorant and intolerant people like you, it will never be peaceful. People like Babar to Musharraf use imaginary allah's name to rule, to have power! until you dont get it, it wont change! Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:23:29 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=92#comment125 @122 Mumeen Good Explanation. I would also like to add that this Jizya is the property of the ruling Government and it will be used for the farewell of the nation.We are happy to pay income tax, road tax, insurances these days but Islamic tax system is better and more beneficial. It is proven by all economists that Islamic finance system is good and it can eliminate the poverty. Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:22:19 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=91#comment124 @ Kamal you need to prove it to your fellow Hindus. I am not trying to be harsh on you my forefathers might have been Hindus. I am glad that I am a Muslim (Alhamdulilah).Being a Muslim we have a lot of things uncommon and it doesn't matter for a Muslim to find out if Ram existed or not.All I can say that even my Hindu friends and people I know, they will say if Dalit touches them they become impure and their Dharam Bashat Ho Jata Hai. I will not believe in a religion which make division between human beings. For me all human beings are equal there are some unfortunate because of poverty and there are some fortunate with their wealth and children. My religion teachings are that both poor and rich are being judged by their deeds and tested by Allah.I pray for all the poor and rich to stay on the true path, a path which has been shown by all the Prophets including Ibrahim, Joseph, Suleman, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Aameen Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:16:25 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=91#comment123 @ Kamal The Ayat you are referring to is from Surah At Tubah. This Surah is for non-Muslims to say Tubah (meaning Repentence and embrace Islam). Hadrat Ali (R.A) once said that this Surah is like a naked Sword of Iman (Faith) for all Non-Muslims. In Quran there are always referencing to something which already happened are going to happen. So it is very important to read all the context in accordance with what is getting referred.For Example: If I say to you I will Kill You, Unless you talk to me in good manner.Now if you only refer to "I will kill you" and doesn't refer to the whole sentence then the meaning is not the correct one. It is exactly what you are and many others are doing. To understand why Allah says to all Musharik, Yahud and also Nasara we need to analyse the reason behind it.This is because our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) teachings for years, they were still committing sins and they were carrying aggression against Islam. But now the situation was different Muslims were being told to fight for your religion. This is going to be punishment from Allah to all non-Muslims, that if you still won't accept Allah as the One creator and do not follow the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) there is going to be punishment from Allah. And now you are referring to the punishment. Jizya was the last option for non-Muslims otherwise they can leave the country. But if they have to live under Islamic law they will have to abide by the rules. I offer my apologies if my explanation was not that clear if you understand Hindi please check out the link below and listen to the file at 44:00. This refer to this Ayat.I would also like to add when referring to Fight that doesn't mean that you can only fight by Sword or weapon, you fight by your knowledge, preaching by your good thoughts and doing Dawah all the time. You can fight by your wealth and your personal good act.(Allah forgive me if I have made any mistakes in this explanation. Aameen) Islam is all about peace but this religion was not easily adopted by people, there was lot of aggression against Muslims, they were killed, made slaves and suffered lot of hardships.World propaganda won't stop against Islam until the day of resurrection. This is when Kufaar (Non-Muslims) will realise their mistake. I hope you understand where I am coming from even you wont embrace Islam I will still pray for you. Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:04:47 GMT+1 Kamal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=90#comment122 To The People who are shamelessly asking proof or Hard evidence to prove if Lord Rama was a real Character and if he was really born in said Place:I ask you following question in order to answer your query:1. What kind of proof do you want i.e. is it Birth Certificate and Domicile certificate?2. If you are looking for above documents, than please care to explain the issuing authority of these documents?3. If you get the above documents from said issuing Authority, how would we decide if said documents are genuine and Issuing authority has power to issue such documents?As Ayodhya dispute was based on the fact that Babri Mosque was built on the rubble of a massive Hindu Temple which Hindu considers the birth Place of Rama as described in their religious book. Archeological survey of India has proven scientifically that Before Mosque; there was a massive structure whose architecture resembles the Hindu temple, this is something Islamic groups have always denied. Let us call it a Big Slap on the Face of Mosque Supporters. A Birth Certificate or Domicile Certificate of Rama would only consist few pages, while Ramayana, which consists around 24,000, verses in 7 books, not only gives details of Birth of Lord Rama but also his all life. After finding details of Rama Setu in Ramayana, Nasa did satellite imaging of that Area and found a under water structure (Adams Bridge) similar to one explained in Ramayana.Is this just a coincidence? We still have all the places where Lord Rama had spent his time during exile and can be visited by anyone. I think anyone can prepare a Birth Certificate and Domicile certificate of few pages just to misguide masses however to write a Book which details the Journey of Lord Rama from North to South can not be done just for fun, keeping in mind the available resources of that time. Sat 02 Oct 2010 21:59:44 GMT+1 Mumeen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=89#comment121 To all those who are ignorant Of Jizya: Jizya was charged on non-muslims like Zakath is compulsary for muslims. Inother words under the Islamic rule Muslims do not need to pay Jizya and Non-muslims do not need to pay Zakath. But Jizya is lesser than the Zakath (2.5%). Under Islamic law both (Muslims and Non-Muslims) have to pay tax either in the form of Zakath or Jizya. Indian hisrorians like their European counterpart lied about Jizya and wrote as if it was unjust. Sat 02 Oct 2010 21:44:42 GMT+1 Mumeen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=88#comment120 Allahabad High Court failed to deliver the Judgement.Instead It allowed to indulge Itself in the act of solving a problem. Almost all the English newspaper editorials in the South (India) agree with Biswas. The judgement was based on faith and belief not on hard evidence. The two Hindu Judges believed that Babar destroyed the temple. But they failed to substantiate their claim. ASI's finding says that there was a huge Hindu temple existed well before mosque being constructed. It did not say that Babar destroyed or ordered for temple desecration. Again it is Judge's belief that he destroyed, not on a proven fact.If Babar was a barbaric ruler who destroyed the temple in 16th centuary then who were those who razed the Mosque in 1992 and those who supporting it? This Modus operandi can be used for Mathura, Varnasi and many other mosques and chuches by suffron clad thugs. Because this Judgement paved the way. In other words it opened the Pandora's box. The former cheif Justice of India (A Hindu)said, " This Judgement is troubling me". BJP and its saffron clad parivars who have no regard for the law of the land and Supreme Court went on to raze the mosque, now asking Muslims to accept the Allahbad High Court's Judgement. Sat 02 Oct 2010 21:20:11 GMT+1 Kamal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=88#comment119 @117 Samab Ali Ahmad Says: - Jizya is a tax when you rule a country you place on everyone who you rule. That was decided in old days it is better than raping, killing innocents and keeping slaves and then selling them. I hope this explain your query.I Say: Dear Samab Ali Ahmad, either you are ignorant to true Islamic Sharia or you are using Al-Taqyiyya (Islamic concept of lying in the cause of Islam) to misguide the BBC Readers. Concept of Jizya comes from the following holy verse:9:29 FIGHT THOSE WHO BELIEVE NOT IN ALLAH NOR THE LAST DAY, NOR HOLD THAT FORBIDDEN WHICH HATH BEEN FORBIDDEN BY ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER, NOR ACKNOWLEDGE THE RELIGION OF TRUTH(ISLAM), (EVEN IF THEY ARE) OF THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK, UNTIL THEY PAY THE JIZYA WITH WILLING SUBMISSION, AND FEEL THEMSELVES SUBDUED.I do not need to tell the BBC readers that Jizya was imposed during the Islamic rule in south Asian countries and as a result many economically poor people of that time had decided to convert into Islam. However, as per true Islam this was wrong as Jizya was an option only for People of Book (Christian and Jews) not for Hindus, Budhists, Jains etc. Follower of Indian religion has only two options either convert or Die under true Islamic Law. I hope above explanation will enlighten you further in regard of Jizya. Regarding your point 76, there could be many bad practices in a society, the main thing is to acknowledge them and take the preventive measures in order to get rid of them. For your information Government as well private groups have taken measures to deal with bad practice of Cast system. However, Cast System (in its current form) has no Backing from Vedas and Gita which are the main pillars of Hinduism. Sat 02 Oct 2010 20:24:57 GMT+1 MonDieu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=87#comment118 #1081.'Running into homes of the Hindu, barred by women trying to protect their sons. The same Muslims who a few days back had dined with their sons.'Sorry. No time for fairy-tales. Why do women always get to play the hero?2.'I am not sure where you live but please do not speak of matters that you are ignorant of.'If you ask me to believe that Muslims revel in killing their neighbours and foregoing peace, I had rather choose to be ignorant.3.'I personally was relieved when calm prevailed after the courts decision.'As would have the world been had the Allies let the Germans have their own way. Why don't people understand that it's no longer a question of calm or turbulence or of faith or belief. It's a question of known history. A question of cold, logical, disinterested justice. We break down a mosque, glorifying in every deliberate act of its destruction. And the way we expiate it by disapproving the very existence of it belies justice and rationality. It's not so much a question of appeasing either the Muslims or Hindus as it is of dispensing justice.It's the calm before a storm. But it will break sure enough. Either now or a century later. It surely shall. Sat 02 Oct 2010 20:15:58 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=86#comment117 Viku_VPK. Please go and find one sentence from Quran which points out for violence. I practice Islam and recite Quran and understand it word by word there is no place for violence.Why 1000's of people everyday embracing Islam? You go and check the stats and come back to me. Honestly the truth is Babar was never a good muslim himself they never attacked India to spread Islam. They ruled India for their own greed and wealth. Islam teachings are totally different few people who are Muslims by birth doesn't portray all Islam. Forexample Lets say your underworld Don Daud is muslim by name but all his actions are totally against the teachings of Islam. Mumbai attacks are similar to the ones which are daily getting carried out by the same fanatics in Pakistan or around the world. They do not represent Islam even though they might be doing this in the name of Islam.@ Jay Point 80 Can you please explain to me whether Hitler was Hindu, Muslim or Christian. If we get his killings statistics they are far more than any atrocities these so called Muslims (Jihadis) have done. But get this point, In Quran it states: If you have killed one innocent person you have killed the whole Humanity. That means they will definitely on the wrong side of Quran teachings and they are not Muslims any more.There are so many conspiracies surrounding all these terrorism acts. Be honest if they attacked Iraq to take away the WOMD which they never found any. Can you justify their killings (Were the attackers were Muslims). Have they not killed more than these fanatics have killed. The whole country has been destroyed on a false claim.Truth is aggression is bad doesn't matter where you apply it. This attack on Babri mosque was wrong and killings also. Sat 02 Oct 2010 20:08:41 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=85#comment116 All the above replies at me doesn't explain my questions but honestly I have hindus friends who doesn't even believe in Ram like our dear author who himself have doubts. You guys are trying to prove something which your own loved ones doesn't believe in it.I am a true human rights person and this is the reason I am raising my questions to all Hindu community. No one has replied to my query which is regarding untouchables see Point 76.I hope if you build new temple you will allow Dalits to worship there. I doubt it 110% because Hinduism is all about discrimination. I am talking Hinduism which you guys follow. Jay Surya Viku and etc. Your discrimination is all visible to the whole world and the slum you have is not on the streets it is in your hearts.Prove to your brothers if Ram existed then prove to others that this is the birth place of Ram.Forexample I might be a Dalit but now I am a Muslim and I have no problem to go and worship anywhere in the world. There are many hardships Dalits had to suffer everyday from your so called Hindus brothers. You guys are so full of yourselves try to explain the killings of innocent daughters or sisters of India which were killed before they have opened their eyes in this World. Is that what your religion teachings are?The whole world is trying to prove that Islam is full of extremism, but truly it is the only true faith in the whole world, its teachings are for everyone and there is no place for discrimination. @Kamal 101 - Jizya is a tax when you rule a country you place on everyone who you rule. That was decided in old days it is better than raping, killing innocents and keeping slaves and then selling them. I hope this explain your query. Sat 02 Oct 2010 19:54:45 GMT+1 MonDieu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=85#comment115 #1061.'What you have encountered in life seems limited.' True, that - for an 18-year old. Reared to be an oracle, huh?2.'Hindu mobs (if such a thing exists)'I do not like the qualifiers you use - 'if such a thing exists'. If? Of course it does - alive and kicking for all the world to see.3. 'without exception condemned by mainstream hindus as they must be.'Seems like the 'mainstream' Hindus who ostensibly condemn the 'fringe elements' are now condoning a judgement that legitimises its vile blowups. Sat 02 Oct 2010 19:44:45 GMT+1 Blogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=84#comment114 112. At 7:42pm on 02 Oct 2010, Mumeen wrote:No Muslim believes that Allah was born in Babri Masjid.It is Hindus belief that their God Ram was born in that place. Therefore the onus of proving their claim is on their shoulders. Hindus never proved that and now even the two Hindu Judges failed miserably. How can one prove something which never existed?--------------------------------------------Its the height of ignorant comment. It has been very clearly proven that Babar razed Ram temple and built this mosque. Now all 3 Judges unanimously agreed that with the scientific evidence this land belongs to the temple.All over world now the onus on Muslims is to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion. All evidence points out in opposite direction. Building mosques by razing other religion's revered places is bigotry at best. Majority of the world knows that there is no Allah and it is clear that kuran teaches violence. if otherwise prove it! Sat 02 Oct 2010 19:23:17 GMT+1 MonDieu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=83#comment113 " pointing out me to isolated events"Sheesh...I meant "pointing me to...". Sat 02 Oct 2010 19:11:07 GMT+1 d8xter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=82#comment112 It's not the people you should be worried about, it's the media. Sat 02 Oct 2010 18:56:36 GMT+1 Mumeen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=82#comment111 No Muslim believes that Allah was born in Babri Masjid.It is Hindus belief that their God Ram was born in that place. Therefore the onus of proving their claim is on their shoulders. Hindus never proved that and now even the two Hindu Judges failed miserably. How can one prove something which never existed? Sat 02 Oct 2010 18:42:44 GMT+1 Kamal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=81#comment110 @103 MonDieu Says: “Ya,ya....at least they don't go on a raping and killing spree in the name of God. Now………………… but fail to see the growing servility of the Indian mob to superstition and demagogues alike. I Say:I think you do not know much about true Islam teachings. Islam (Medina Verses of Koran) does allow Raping/Looting/Murdering non Muslims in the cause of Allah. There are many verses in Koran which supports all the above activities. Just look through the follwing verse:Qur’an 9:23 “Believers, take not for friends your fathers and your brothers if they love disbelief above belief. If you do, you do wrong.Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”Tabari IX:25 “By Allah, I did not come to fight for nothing. I wanted a victory over Ta’if (unbelievers) so that I might obtain a SLAVE GIRL from them and MAKE HER PREGNANT.”Qur’an 70:28 “Preserve their chastity except with their wives and THE SLAVE GIRLS they possess – for which there is no blame.”The religion who believe in Heavenly reward for Jihadis (Only Male) - like 72 Virgins, 28 young pearly Boys, sparkling water, walking trees laden with fruits and other things which were rare in Arabian peninsula are based on lie, where Heaven/hell has been given more importance than our planet earth. As we know, that Department of Parapsychology, University of Virginia has proven scientifically / medically that rebirth/reincarnation is a truth and one has to come back and start another life. May be you are not aware of these studies undertaken by University. If you are really interested in the truth of Life, please read ““Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives” by Dr. Jim B. Tucker, which is also available at the Amazon.For quick story of James, Please visit the following link,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA&feature=relatedJust so you know that Lord Rama represents a faith which believes in Rebirth, Rest you will figure out by your self. Best Regards, Sat 02 Oct 2010 17:52:56 GMT+1 Kamal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=80#comment109 @102 Mondieu says:Horrible prose. Can't see what you're arriving at.And oh, just in case you didn't know. India professes to be secular while Saudi Arabia is admittedly religious. That makes all the difference. I Say:In order to understand my post (101) , you must know Islamic history & Sharia from Arabic sources. Anyway, thanks for agreeing with me that Islamic Sharia is very intolerable and is the reason that a non Muslim, even can not carry his/her religious book in true Islamic country. Tolerant to intolerant is stupidity and must be challenged. As, I said earlier, secular/democratic countries are the victims of their own secular constitution. The word “Secularism” needs to be redefined. Just so you know, Under Italian constitution, Islam does not get financial benefits as other counterparts like Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism , Buddhism gets from the government. I believe Italian treats Islam as a political Ideology rather than religion. Sat 02 Oct 2010 17:36:31 GMT+1 Blogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=80#comment108 So with this logic of Biswas we should remove all the mosques and churches because there is no evidence of Allah or GOD is it? He wont say so in fear of retaliation like Fatawah on Salman Rashdi. He is one of the cheap journalists have no daring to talk about violent religion. They keep on pocking at peaceful Hindus because they wont retaliate, in fact they just ignore! Shame on BBC that they only managed to find this man of all 1 billion Indians to write illogical articles. Sat 02 Oct 2010 17:16:38 GMT+1 Passingby http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=79#comment107 #103 "I'm yet to encounter a Christian or a Muslim mob here in India while there has been more than one such instance from the Hindu camp"I know exactly what Janaki (#105) is talking about. I have seen Muslim mobs run amok with iron pipes and swords. Running into homes of the Hindu, barred by women trying to protect their sons. The same Muslims who a few days back had dined with their sons. The place where I live is predominantly Muslim. I have seen riots and humans turned to rabid animals. Mon Dieu, I am not sure where you live but please do not speak of matters that you are ignorant of. An angry mob knows only blood and destruction, it does not matter which flag it waves. I personally was relieved when calm prevailed after the courts decision. Sat 02 Oct 2010 16:09:54 GMT+1 shashank http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=78#comment106 First thing which i noticed in Soutik's article is that he is trying to raise a question over believe of crores of hindus .He is raising a question over existence of RAM. This is unfortunate.Now, what court has done is clearly a step taken to "please all the concerned parties".This compromising decision is really not acceptable but keeping in view the sensitivity of the issue it was important to maintain peace & harmony in the nation.As we have got the decision from H.C.,we can hope this long-awaited issue to be resolved.And it's very clear that all groups are planning to move S.C..So let's wait & watch. Sat 02 Oct 2010 15:31:05 GMT+1 janaki http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=77#comment105 #74"Even if it is true that there use to be temple existed before Babri Mosque. Can you still justify the destruction of Babri Mosque by a Hindu mob and than killing 1000's. "You make it sound as if it was Hindu mobs alone that went about on a killing spree. Not true. After the babri structure was pulled down riots were started in many places by muslim mobs right after their friday sermons. Both Hindus and muslims were killed in the violence.Please note that this verdict is not about any criminal case. Do not mix up the two. This was about the specifc ownership of the land - a civil case - that has nothing to do with the pulling down of the mosque or the riots which are dealt with separately in criminal cases. The judges ruling acknowledged the legtimacy of the hindu claim to the land based on archaelogical and other evidence. Sat 02 Oct 2010 15:13:39 GMT+1 janaki http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=77#comment104 Mondieu #103"I'm yet to encounter a Christian or a Muslim mob here in India while there has been more than one such instance from the Hindu camp. Correct me if I'm wrong!"What you have encountered in life seems limited. You have obviously not had the need to move near neighborhoods where muslim hoodlums were going about attacking passerbys(mostly hindus and usually after friday sermons). I have and it can be scary. Hindu mobs (if such a thing exists) usually forms in retaliation to a previous incident that has taken place. Of course there may be fringe elements like the ram sena, but they are without exception condemned by mainstream hindus as they must be. Sat 02 Oct 2010 15:05:45 GMT+1 Phew http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=76#comment103 Soutik Biswas you say 'There is no evidence that the hero of the popular Indian epic Ramayana was a historical character.' shame on you being an Indian you quote this. Its cause of people like you being an Indian who will do anything for money which facilitated Indian invasion by all the good for nothing aliens like the british, mughals, bribing missionaries...... and let them steal the Indians. Indian religion is mother of all other religion anything and everything good in new relegions is in the old Vedas,Ramayana, Mahabharata. Will you dare to make the same quote on figures of other relegion cause there is no proof on them too, NO cause u r scared of your life and earnings. Again shame on you. Jai Rama Sat 02 Oct 2010 14:26:19 GMT+1 MonDieu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=75#comment102 @87"BTW when a Christian or Muslim encourage conversion, they too invoke the 'Spirit'"Ya,ya....at least they don't go on a raping and killing spree in the name of God. Now don't begin pointing out me to isolated events. I preclude terrorism where the perpetrator can be pinned down and brought to book. It's only a mob that renders its victims helpless - for the simple reason that no one's guilty. I'm yet to encounter a Christian or a Muslim mob here in India while there has been more than one such instance from the Hindu camp. Correct me if I'm wrong! Again, I cannot but fail to see the growing servility of the Indian mob to superstition and demagogues alike. Sat 02 Oct 2010 14:22:06 GMT+1 MonDieu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=74#comment101 @101Horrible prose. Can't see what you're arriving at.And oh, just in case you didn't know. India professes to be secular while Saudi Arabia is admittedly religious. That makes all the difference. Sat 02 Oct 2010 13:46:07 GMT+1 Kamal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=74#comment100 In Reply to Samab Ali Ahmad You Says (#74).Even if it is true that there use to be temple existed before Babri Mosque. Can you still justify the destruction of Babri Mosque by a Hindu mob and than killing 1000's. Court was the answer for any claims but by force destruction can never be justified. I do not want to offend Hindus by saying what Biswas quoted about the existence of the Ram. Truth is we all need to look in ourselves and find out our hatred feelings. The first thing I will throw out will be discrimination. Lets hope all the fanatics can do that (Muslims and Hindus). This is the only way forward as a modern society.I Say:While it has been proven archeologically that Babri Mosque was built on the site of Massive Temple, you using the sentence like “Even if it is true ……” in the opening sentence, just shows you mentality that you will reject anything as long as things are not in favor of Islam. This attitude of yours would make you unsuitable to have any meaningful debate with. I ask you one simple question: Can you justify the Jizya tax, which was imposed on ancestors of Hindus, Buddhists etc and Non Muslims ancestors of Yours (South Asian Converted Muslims) during the Islamic rule, which had forced economically weaker non Muslims to see the divinity in Islam and eventually convert into it? Regarding the verdict, This is repetition of 1947, where in order to avoid conflict India was partitioned, and now the same has been repeated and once again 1/3 of Land has been given to Sunni waqf board – represents Babur who had built Babri mosque after destroying the temple, which was a common practice of that time. (Babri was the name of boy who was love-interest of Babur who was a pedophile as per his own autobiography)Although I am not happy with the division of temple land, but I accept Court verdict which sends a clear signal to the people who (when in power) destroys the original religious places of other faiths in order to show their dominance. They should understand that truth can not be changed even after 500 years and will eventually come out.However, I would not mind saying that India is the victim of its own Secular Constitution, which had forced Hindu devotees to take law in their hands and destroy the Mosque, as Indian constitution could not give them the Justice. This is the Indian constitution which should be blamed for the destruction of Mosque in 1992 as it had failed to deliver justice to Hindus prior to destruction. I am happy that you understand the need of eliminating discrimination based on Religion and I sincerely feel that you will start doing so by demonstrating peacefully in front of Saudi High commission in your country and request them to allow followers of other religions, just to carry their religious book (forget about constructed places of worship for time being) in Saudi Arabia. I sincerely feel that you would be successful in your aim, as Islam is the most peaceful and tolerant religion according to some Muslim scholars. Sat 02 Oct 2010 13:03:16 GMT+1 Ashwinpatel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=73#comment99 To understand the judgement I quote last lines of famous patriotic song of the great Urdu Poet Iqbal " Religion does not teach us to harbour grudges between usIndians we all are; India, our motherlandWhile Greece, Egypt , Rome have all been wiped outtill now yet remains, this civilization of ours {it has stood the test of time}Something there is that keeps us,our entity from being erodedFor ages has been our enemy, the way of the worldIqbal! Is there no soul that couldunderstand the pain in thy heart?" Sat 02 Oct 2010 12:05:26 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=72#comment98 Dear All,Each and every citizen including chief justice of india is aware that if someone has killed someone it needs proof as per the Law book of ambedkar.. If it is not, the criminal will not punished...This is the loop hole of Indian Judiciary.. It is very obvious now that Muslims want to approach supreme court looking at the possiblity of loop hole..When they went to allahabad court it was correct to know the ownership of disputed structure.After archeology evidence still if you want to go Supreme court, what are you looking for?Loop Hole!!!Please bear in mind that even you Muslims are convinced about the importance of place to hindus but still you are competing for one simple reason..You want the symbol of Babar attrocity over Hindu Temple..You want to establish as your pride at the cost of Hindus dignity and faithon god..And for this sake you people enacting drama in the name of minority ..If you are that much eager in escaping through the loopholes of supreme court even Narenadra Modi's Great grandson will mobilise a mob and have the chance of destroying all the structures committed in the same manner..So what i advise you is create friendly atmosphere with Hindus and acknowledge what your inner mind says as right that the Hindu temple over there is correct and we all live as United indians..Can you see the enmity between aryans and dravidians though there are minor isses in mumbai?In the same way we all can live in harmony... Sat 02 Oct 2010 11:09:04 GMT+1 Ashwinpatel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=71#comment97 A famous poet Iqbal has written patriotic song about India. Song includes following words; UNANO MISHRA MIT GAYE JAHASE, KUCHH BAT HAI KE HASTI MITTI NAHI HAMARI- SARE JAHAN SE ACCHHA HINDOSTAN HAMARA' means "Old Civilization Concepts of Greek and Egypt stands destroyed, However, there is something (Great) that our civilization concepts are yet not destroyed". After judgement Position of India proves what Poet Iqbal has predicted in his poem before many many years !!!!!!. WELCOME JUDGEMENT Sat 02 Oct 2010 10:42:37 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=71#comment96 @83..Muslims has complained that the Judgement was delivered on faith.So your inner feelings acknowledges that the Justice delivered is right but you are complaining that it is not in Law book of Ambedkar.Isn't it?Dear MP's, Realise the true face of muslims..While they are asking us to go by law book..why don't u enact a new one..2/3 of your voting in parliament can give a go ahead to construct a temple in entire area..Why does the people like Mulayam and others stay on votebanks politics.. Muslims complaint that Ambedkar doesn't give a direction for Babri case...A few individual who derived law may not have applied their thought on this..Thus they didn't thought about it doesn't mean that 80 crore Hindus has to compromise a real Justice..FYI...Judges pointed out that they given in addition to faith they delivered judgement based on evidence. Sat 02 Oct 2010 10:12:49 GMT+1 Ashwinpatel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=70#comment95 O. K. nice no problem. I Agree. Sat 02 Oct 2010 10:11:03 GMT+1 Ashwinpatel http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=69#comment94 Even if the judgement is Pragmatic Compromise it should be welcomed. 'FAITH' and 'TOLERANCE'are best understood and practiced by Hindus. It is well said by a western philosopher that any Western beginning need to have Indian ending if not to result in self destruction. This is what he has said : this is Indian Ending- Tolerance and Faith Sat 02 Oct 2010 10:09:00 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=68#comment93 @90Excellent answer!!! Sat 02 Oct 2010 10:00:53 GMT+1 Indian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=68#comment92 I have to disagree with people of unbelief and lack of faith such as this blogger. Soutik is one of those with mentality of one size fits all like most of the Indian Marxists. They thrive in insulting others' belief and as such do not deserve to be in a real secular society like India. Hinduism is secularism, for people who haven't got any idea about what I am talking about, look up the various schools of philosophies under Hinduism, it covers everything from materialism (carvaka), monetheism (all bhakti cults), monism (advaita) and other heterodox forms (buddhism, jainism, etc). It is a different issue altogether that some westerners feel comfortable to take out Hindu sects and call them different religions, no doubt for some mischievous reasons of their own.All Hindu sects have valued tolerance, non-violence and striving for the truth as that is what the underlying commonality of Hinduism is, the path of Dharma.Unfortunately the same cannot be said for manifestly political religions like Christianity and Islam, where proselytizing (another name for intolerance) is considered a necessity to get the leverage of head counts and hence the path to political power. Islam in this sense is the worst offender, as evidenced by the lack of plurality in most Islamic countries, where religious minorities are de facto non-citizens, and public display of minority faiths a crime (refer to conditions of Shi'a and Ahmediyya sects in Pakistan, I am not even talking of the handful of Hindus and Sikhs left, and the less said of Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and other such avowedly Islamic nations). Religions like Islam and Christianity are in fact forms of imperialism disguised as divine strictures/diktats.I am sorry to say but such issues in India would have been resolvable only if we had done the right thing in 1947 and relieved ourselves of our Muslim populace, instead we took in the followers of Dharma from the neighbouring territories but failed to get rid of those who did not believe in Dharma. The only way such issues may now be resolved is by making Dharma a state policy and making sure that the Dharmic follower gets the upper hand. If someone is unhappy in India about his rights, there exists states created exclusively for such people, they are free to emigrate. You cannot have it both ways. Pluralism and secularism do not give you the right to abuse others and then cry when the same treatment is meted out to you, the sort of behavior that is exactly prescribed in Islam, a religion for the perpetually persecuted. They are minorities even in their own countries and prove it with daily bloodshed and total lack of freedoms. Sat 02 Oct 2010 09:00:21 GMT+1 Freedom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=67#comment91 For all Contributors:Baba Bullay a great Indian Sufi Saint wrote the following poetry:Masjid Dha Day, Mandir Dha DayDha Day Jo Kujh DisdaPar Kissay Da Dil Na DhaweenRub Dilaan Wich Wasda.Translation in English:Tear down the Mosque, tear down the templeTear down every thing in sightBut don't (tear down) break anyone's heartBecause God lives there.We go to Tample, we go to Church, we go to Mosque to worship the God but we slaughter or hate his innocent people.This mosque and this temple was a bone of contention in this city or in india. This dispute only gave the importance relogious people who have destructive role in subcontinent present politics. We should understand the religious groups are getting importance through this conflict and they are getting political benefit of it. Infact, this conflict has no worth.The great Gurus, Saints, Sufis gave the message of love. Question is WHY WE HATE EACH OTHER BY USING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS..... We live in computer age and we are too weak to solve this mater. Sat 02 Oct 2010 08:40:10 GMT+1 aditya http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=66#comment90 I do not agree with Biswas, when he suggests absurd propositions such as building a "shopping mall" there. The temple issue is dead in so far as fetching votes is concerned, but it does not mean that Hindus do not feel this temple is important. Restraint is a virtue of Indian culture. This site and Lord Ram should not be compared with Babar, this site holds the importance of Mecca for hindus. The way Biswas is mocking at the sentiments of millions of Hindus should be condemned. Every one wants peace, both hindus and muslims, as shown by the restraint after the verdict. Both temple and mosque should be built there, but leave no doubt, this mocking is very insulting,and leaves bad taste in mind Sat 02 Oct 2010 07:36:56 GMT+1 foobarspam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=65#comment89 If a Christian country today occupies Saudi Arabia, destroys the religious structures at Mecca and Medina and builds churches over those spots, will any Muslim accept the legality of those churces 500 years from now? Is there any doubt that Muslims will not try to destroy those chruches and reconstruct their mosques?Any Muslims should complain about Ayodhya if and only if they will accept the outcome above.In deed no other religion is even allowed to have a structure in Saudi Arabia.We canot have different rules regarding sanctity of structures belonging to different religions. As the ruling says, there is archealogical evidence of Hindu temple there prior to the mosque, which only came in 16th century. Regardless of Rama being real/not and where he was born that spot was an important religious site for the Hindus who have always been the majority demograghy in that land before the msque was build and today.Can anyone really prove that Mohammad ascended into the sky from the Mosque in Jerusalem? Will Muslims accept that structure being destroyed andrebuilt with a different religious structure?If there is no proof that Rama lived is there any proof that Jesus parted waters and/or Mohammad ascended to heaven? The question is not proof that Rama was real. We have proof that A temple was destroyed and we have prrof that Ayodhya was considered birth place of Rama. Sat 02 Oct 2010 05:46:53 GMT+1 Annavaram http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=65#comment88 the title of this article asks a right question, but I think, at a wrong time. can a compromise ever be happy? as it is generally known to us, two rival parties often go for, or in fact, are compelled to go for, compromises simply when no bettter option other than the compromise itself is feasable. as I personally understand, the recent court verdict is nothing more than a politically necessiated, populously dictated legal compromise enforced by three descenting judges, one among whom seemed to be in a great rush before he retired.if I have to tell my friends abroad what the verdict has really given us here in India today, it is this: that we are now slowly realising the inherent nature of our democratic institutions and the subtle ways in which they have been working for these last sixty years. for example, talking about the real repercussions the judgements of this kind can have on the Indian legal system in the days to come, the eminent Indian historian Romila Thapar wrote in an english daily: "The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeksto replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence" (See Opinion page, Hindu, 02/10/2010, available online at http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/02/stories/2010100261411700.htm ). but there are also others like Shekhar Gupta, editor of another English Daily, who seem to believe that the damage control is still possible and that a compromise like this can stand as a tall testimony to the so-called secularism in this country. in one of his columns in today's edition of Indian Express written mainly to show the shining side of the verdict, he goes to the extent of prophesying, in his own words: "Nobody would take any offence any which way. So welcome to Incredible India" (Columns, Indian Express, 02/10/2010, available online at http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/691395/ ).so, is it a happy compromise? following my Indian ethics, I have no other option but say: 1. why not, it is the happiest compromise, but the saddest legal verdict no one ever expects from a modern judicial institution. 2. it is the most populous political pronouncement full of Hindu rationality and Indian reasoning, but of highly polarising consequence. and finally, 3. it is definitely a contextualised, momentous verdict, but less appealing and illogical in every possible term.My special thanks to the BBC Team and interested colleagues! Sat 02 Oct 2010 03:57:13 GMT+1 Blogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=64#comment87 87. At 02:15am on 02 Oct 2010, desitipusultan you are right on! Sat 02 Oct 2010 02:25:26 GMT+1 desitipu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=63#comment86 @54 MonDieu wrote: I presume the same "spirit of divine" was invoked when pregnant women were ripped open and those hapless infants quartered before their very eyes in Gujarat.Get your facts right and keep being informed. There were three police compalints about one woman named'KausarBanu' in whose case this crime was alleged. This has subsequently been proven to be a fabricated story. many such fabrications about the rapes and 'genocidal' proportion of deaths were made at the behest of Teesta Setalvad. See http://www.indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/89840/States/Inhuman+rights.html to read more about this. BTW when a Christian or Muslim encourage conversion, they too invoke the 'Spirit' - maybe a bit limited in the sense that the 'Spirit' cannot take form! @allWhat I find disturbing is that amongst the Indian Muslims there is a lot of anguish at the fact that a mosque was broken but absolutely no inkling of any remorse for the sheer vandalism inflicted on Hindu temples. Nobody holds the current Muslims to be responsible but while claiming ownership of the looted properties due to a notion of limitation, can they not even bring themselves understand the pain that might have been inflicted over an extended period of time? Did the independence from British rule mean reverting to the Mughal Rule in the name of secularism. Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura all have as much significance to Hindus as Mecca and Medina to Muslims. What is their significance to Islam? And if possession gives you an edge, then why shouldn't all the mosques at Hindu holy sites be forcibly be occupied by the Hindus? I find it a bit strange that the country has to be divided because Muslims cannot stay with Hindus but then some Muslims choose to stay behind and these then deny Hindus right to reclaim their holy places. If some Hindus are not very religious, this fact does not give them a right to decide on behalf of all Hindus to suggest building a Mall! What is particularly painful that a non-democratic behaviour of voting en-masse as adviced in Friday prayers is making political leaders pander to the minority while the majority being pluralistic in nature have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians! Sat 02 Oct 2010 01:15:19 GMT+1 CricketBuster http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=62#comment85 This post has been Removed Sat 02 Oct 2010 00:53:59 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=62#comment84 "The Sunni Waqf Board and All India Muslim Personal Law Board should show a gesture and vacate the land the court has allotted them. It should not be seen as surrender," said Islamic scholar Zeenat Shaukat Ali. Ali added that there are precedents in Muslim history where Muslims had showed generosity and given up their places of worship once they found that these were built on places of worship of other religions".Some Muslims open to moving mosque - The Times of India : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Some-Muslims-open-to-moving-mosque/articleshow/6669107.cms#ixzz119lq7Ysl Sat 02 Oct 2010 00:26:59 GMT+1 janaki http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=61#comment83 addh #83Punishing babar is not the point. But babar must be recognized as the invading barbarian that he was. No monument need be built or retained for such kind.Ayodhya is of great religious significance to Hindus and none whatsoever to muslims. Why must anybody claim the important religious spots of other religions. Fri 01 Oct 2010 22:08:17 GMT+1 addh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=60#comment82 @ Surya 1980, I am surprised to hear that you think destroying the Mosque was a fitting reply to Babur.. he is long dead so he wont even know how pleased you are .. i think you will also support demolition of all structures which were or are raised by destroying other structures... thats a big demolition job my friend.. Fri 01 Oct 2010 21:43:40 GMT+1 Blogger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=59#comment81 Samab Ali Ahmad and may Pakistani fellow humans,Instead of supporting barbaric Babar and his heinous act of destroying temple I suggest you to concentrate on so many state sponsored bad things in Pakistan. Thousands of muslims are killed by Pakistani Army daily, here is a proof: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11455858Forget about minorities. Hindu population in Pakistan went from 33% to less than 1% due to religious intolerance of muslim fanatics. Mulsims in India have more privileges and security that any other place in the world. India has prevailed the test of democracy, independent judiciary, increasing awareness of human rights and protecting the (thriving) minority. It has been successful in peacefully dealing with epicenter of terrorism as a neighbor. India shares the threat of 'Islamic extremism' with the rest of the world. In my opinion instead of fighting over land in Ayodhya or Newyork and throwing tirade at peaceful India, Muslims (especially wahabis) should ask for a temple in Mecca. Fri 01 Oct 2010 20:43:56 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=59#comment80 Continuation to my earlier post for Samab Ali Ahmad.Another disturbing aspect is none of those governments (in Bangladesh and Pakistan) or major political parties ever took up the matter of destruction of Hindu and Sikh temples and filed a court cases there, unlike India. I understand that they were (not anymore for Bangladesh) Islamic countries and ruled mostly by anti-India, Anti-Hindu forces. Unlike Hindus, very few Muslims even feel remorse and try to prevent atrocities against minority community where Muslims are majority. On the contrary, many of them (I do not know if they are majority) feel happy on such occasions. It is not the question what is ideal, but that’s what we used to experience in our daily lives, till Babri happened. How many Muslims (Indian or otherwise) loudly demand that all Islamic nations (mainly in Mid East and in our neighbourhood) must give equal rights to other religious minorities, including Hindus? I have not seen many. Babri not only changed Indian political equation but also changed both Hindu and Muslim (mass) psychology. Probably India needed that sacrifice, that blood to become a more civilized and tolerating, secular democracy. Fri 01 Oct 2010 19:35:51 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=58#comment79 @ Samab Ali Ahmad (post #71 and 76). You said, “if you dig out the history you will see more massacre in the world by other faiths than Muslims starting from 1st World war till now. The only way forward is have a bigger heart and accept all faiths. Give other faiths protection and follow your faith truly and without any influence same goes for Muslims”.I do not have that data to assume that Muslims kills/killed less than ALL RELIGIONS COMBINED in the world. But I have reasonably assured data that as a single faith, Islam and Christianity (in form of either jehad and other “holy wars” and then ethnic cleansing of other religious groups during colonization era) killed much more people than any other (single) religion in the history of mankind. And Hindus (and its off shot religions like (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism etc) are one of the MOST peaceful religions in the world. In post-second world war era, Islam is the single largest religion that is responsible and/or involved in maximum number of regional and global conflicts. Then coming to your next statement, “I hope other Muslim countries wont damage 1000's of temples which are even more sacred than the ones's in India. They will not and they never had and this is a fact (Except Taliban destroying the faces of Buddhas which I totally oppose). It is against Islam values to destroy one's religious places if Muslims are in the majority.That statement is not true either. Thousands of temples was destroyed just after Babri demolition alone in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Check any independent or UN report like this one:The day babri was demolished, the same week (next day) a bunch of Islamic terrorists destroyed a part of a famous temple in Dahka; in Bangladesh, many temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh was attacked. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,CHRON,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html UNHCR report on Pakistan (2004): http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,CHRON,PAK,,469f38c678,0.htmlDec 1992: “Muslims attacked temples across Pakistan and the government of this overwhelmingly Muslim nation closed offices and schools for one day to protest the destruction of the Babri mosque in India”. This is a state sponsored “bandh” (general strike) that interferes with Indian internal affair. Jan 1993: “A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN IN 1992, WHICH WAS RELEASED BY THE US STATE DEPARTMENT, REVEALS THAT IF HUMAN RIGHTS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE ABUSED IN INDIA, THEN THE SITUATION IN PAKISTAN COULD ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS "APPALLING", WITH HUMAN RIGHTS "BRUTALIZED" ON A SYSTEMATIC BASIS. The State Department accused Pakistan of persecuting minority Hindus, Christians and Ahmadis. Hindus asserted that they are subject to kidnappings, the forced conversions of young women, and the desecration of Hindu shrines. They also state that they are not permitted to freely practice their religion.”. We need to remember that this US state department assessment was much before 9/11 and when US was a very close friend of Pakistan, more than India.So far ur mention about the National Geographic report on caste system among Hiundus is concerned, you can check the following bolg and the comments by many Hindus who vehemently oppose caste system. I have not seen such vibrant and passionate debate involving tenets of Koran or Islam in general among Muslims, even among present day, educated Muslims. There are so many Hindus (even in government and political parties) that oppose Hindu fundamentalism. Majority of Hindus were against Babri and post-Godhra violence. That’s what I am referring as “internal control”. Making heart big for one party is not the solution unless the other party tries to match that. I can not pour 1 liter of water into a 100ml pot. “Caste census: Opening a Pandora's box?”- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/05/so_is_caste_the_complex.html Fri 01 Oct 2010 19:20:04 GMT+1 janaki http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=57#comment78 #53The judges did not rule that Ram was born in Ayodhya and it does not matter whether he was or not. But that the spot is "believed" to be the birthplace of Ram by Hindus for many generations. This belief predates the babri structure. Further ASI produced evidence that the structure was built over a massive temple and temple columns were in fact used in the stucture. Other evidence points to the structure being built on the orders of babar (an invader). The babri thing had no business being in Ayodhya in the first place and Ayodhya is not religiously important to muslims the way it is to hindus. Fri 01 Oct 2010 19:00:08 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=57#comment77 @75 (Samab Ali Ahmad )I agree that killing people of other religion is false and i condemn that..From 1855 onwards, Hindus were demanding for temple over there..After 200 years do you expect us to not gather in unity and pull down the structure..Muslims should have come forward considering the importance of other religious claims and handed over it..If they did so, there wouldn't be such an enmity between us and there wouldn't be forced demolition..Give mutual respect to other religion..Same applies to us..As far as Hindus point of view Babri mosque is a manmade structure with Known date whereas Hindus worship date is not traceable in that site..Even now, please appeal to your Muslim friends and go friendly with Hindus..This friendliness is being considered by Muslim fundamentalist as surrendering to other religion and this ego makes you people to move to apes court now.. Fri 01 Oct 2010 18:22:16 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=56#comment76 @75 ( Samab Ali Ahmad),Kar sevaks have gathered to destroy the Mosque and they did it..It was afitting reply to Barbaric Babar.That's all..By this time Muslims shall not be provoked..But they did..Mumbai Bomb blasts led to Killing of 1000's of people..But Hindus aim was not attacking muslims.keep it in mind..Coming to your next possiblity...If we did not used force and requested the Judiciary..Do you think that Judicial people will order the govt to destro the Mosque..Will it happen?It will not..Even now WAQK board is not getting compromised on 1/3 formula..How can you expect that without force Hindu's would have achieved their objective..As you seems to be slightly moderte person..I am asking you..Mosque is a manmade structure in 16 th century..Hindus claim it as a birth place of their deity.In this scenario who has to adjust with other community? Fri 01 Oct 2010 18:11:41 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=55#comment75 This is the fact.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html Fri 01 Oct 2010 18:08:53 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=54#comment74 @Surya 1980 there are many places around the world where other religious places have been converted into Mosques are temples. If you live in the Europe there are many churches which have been converted into Mosques or Temples. There are no proof that there was a temple before Babri Mosque and if there was it might have been destroyed by the war (Just a suggestion). But if one person does wrong that doesn't mean you do it too. By being in larger strength Hindus did that and I feel it is a shameful act. Force is never a solution. If today someone kills 1000's of Hindus just because Muslims were killed cannot be justified and should not happen. Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:55:04 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=54#comment73 Even if it is true that there use to be temple existed before Babri Mosque. Can you still justify the destruction of Babri Mosque by a Hindu mob and than killing 1000's. Court was the answer for any claims but by force destruction can never be justified. I do not want to offend Hindus by saying what Biswas quoted about the existence of the Ram. Truth is we all need to look in ourselves and find out our hatred feelings. The first thing I will throw out will be discrimination. Lets hope all the fanatics can do that (Muslims and Hindus). This is the only way forward as a modern society. Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:49:05 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=53#comment72 @69 ( Samab Ali Ahmad),So you are convinced that destructing other religious building is false..Then you should be convinced for demolition of a Babri Masjid structure which had violated while it was constructed.History had an error and it is being solved now.Isn't it?I am sure that you people aware that what you claim is wrong.But still your extremist nature is not allowing you to acknowledge the correctness in front of others.Just for namesake you are defending.. Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:47:41 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=52#comment71 @71 ( Samab Ali Ahmad), Please read point 60 for the reason and ask yourself why Babar constructed a structure overthere? Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:43:08 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=51#comment70 @JAY you are trying hard to justify all the Hindus, I hope you are including all the untouchables as well in them. Truth is most of modern India still needs to be modernised especially their heart.There is discrimination everywhere. I just think it is wrong that you accuse Muslims for being hardliners even though majority of them are not but Hindus are in India.@It also show that, “while Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists tend to be more politically liberal than the population overall”.The problem with Muslim community (world wide) is the break down of internal control mechanism and internal debate on religion. That is should and must not be the case for Hindus and for a country, as a whole.This statement is totally blown out of proportion and you need to remember if you dig out the history you will see more massacre in the world by other faiths than Muslims starting from 1st World war till now. The only way forward is have a bigger heart and accept all faiths. Give other faiths protection and follow your faith truly and without any influence same goes for Muslims.I hope other Muslim countries wont damage 1000's of temples which are even more sacred than the ones's in India. They will not and they never had and this is a fact (Except Taliban destroying the faces of Buddhas which I totally oppose). It is against Islam values to destroy one's religious places if Muslims are in the majority.There are still doubts over Hindus claims that Ayodhya is a birth place of Ram. Please ask yourself why Babri Mosque was destroyed on 13th December? Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:30:14 GMT+1 Pras_n_Srini http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=51#comment69 @56 (Passingby), I need to correct your otherwise excellent reply to AbdulWahid.The court actually DID have another alternative (which I had mentioned earlier), that of handing the entire site lock-stock-barrel to the (extremely bureaucratic--and unquestionably secular in bribe-takings) Municipal Corporation Of Ayodhya, and none to either religious community Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:18:09 GMT+1 Samab Ahmad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=50#comment68 I would like to put a question to all who feel that the verdit was a correct one.If today some fanatic Muslims takeover Varnasai's temples and bulldozer them. After this kill at least 2000 Hindus and then court gives a verdict it is all OK lets split the site between Muslims and Hindus. 75% of Land to Muslims and 25% to Hindus. Would you like that as a justice.This verdict is a disgrace to India, so called democratic country. Majority of Muslims will remain untouchables for them and majority cowardliness Hindus will always sabotage Muslims sacred places.The truth is unless majority of Hindus leave this hatred path, all the other faiths followers will always a target for these extremists.This not for all Hindus only the extremist ones which is more than 90% in India. Discrimination is a religion for most Hindus. Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:14:11 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=49#comment67 Message to aadh(point 63)Why do you want to ignore the root cause for the problem and discussing about current scenario alone?First answer the question by applying your thoughts for point 60 and individuals shall consider whether it is in focus or not...Judgement says joint ownership since muslims used the place since 16 th century and Hindus worshipped thier from untraced date..Why do you want to compare this scenario with someone claiming an individulas house?How many cases are pending in Indian courts that thier ancestors lived in certain place and asked others to vacate?Your words agree that Babar had committed mistake.Muslims are not blamed for what babar did..Acknowledge that he had committed mistake and don't interfere in disputed structure issue..No one will blame muslims..In today's real estate scenario plots are changing hand to hand in day to day basis..Don't tie the knots between 2 different issues and don't imagine that Hindus are standing in front of Muslims houses that it belong to them... Fri 01 Oct 2010 17:09:46 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=48#comment66 The recent survey by highly reputed PEW forum survey shows that level of development of a community roughly correlates with percentage of atheists and agonists (more under-developed a population is, more religious it will be. % of “non-believers” will be significantly less from that social group. More than 73% atheists are “white” while less than 8% belong to “black” and “Latino” (there is no mention about Islam there). Male are more in number among “non-believers” than female. “A solid majority of Americans (62%) reject the idea that religion causes more problems in society than it solves. This figure includes majorities of most Christian traditions and more than two-thirds of Muslims (68%). IN CONTRAST, NEARLY HALF OF JEWS (49%) AND MORE THAN HALF OF BUDDHISTS (56%), HINDUS (57%) AND THE UNAFFILIATED (59%) SAY RELIGION CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES. INDEED, MORE THAN THREE-QUARTERS OF ATHEISTS (77%) BELIEVE RELIGION CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES, with nearly half (49%) of atheists completely agreeing with this statement”. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]It also show that, “while Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists tend to be more politically liberal than the population overall”.The problem with Muslim community (world wide) is the break down of internal control mechanism and internal debate on religion. That is should and must not be the case for Hindus and for a country, as a whole. Anyone can check the full report (interesting info):[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:51:04 GMT+1 professor calculus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=48#comment65 @ MonDieu. Thanks [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]I would invite all the readers to condemn all acts of violence in the name of religion, whether Hindu on Muslim, Muslim on Hindu, Hindu on Sikh, etc, etc. Whilst making huge strives forward in all spheres - Human Rights still seem to place us in prehistoric times. Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:50:11 GMT+1 professor calculus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=47#comment64 @3.43 surya1980 I think people can continue for the next 400 years questioning and conducting post mortems about the Mosque and why there. It's a good way to pass the time. Satyan - you make a good point about the current generation. Live and let live!!It's been resolved in a satisfactory manner for the time being - let's hope the appeals don't now take another 18 years!!Mr Biswas is a journalist - his job is to write and in some cases invoke a response - not sure why some people are getting very irate with him. Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:32:30 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=46#comment63 This is a fact that before Babri demolition, Hindus generally reacted once provoked by violent attacks by Muslims. That single incident gave the political urgency and an opportunity for the Hindus to come together as a group and take active part in protecting the country and the people belonging to that group. I know, many Muslim brothers will be annoyed and angry over such statement. But I can not help- it’s the truth (many members of my extended family in India and East Pakistan witnessed that first hand). That incident introduced the “balance of power” and those two “rival” communities start respecting each other; not for logical or religious ground but for fear of equally violent reprisal. In fact Western democracies like America had such “balance of power” that helped it to introduce more neutral, balanced society and justice system. If such incident (like Babri demolition and Post-Godhra violence) happened before 1947, I doubt if any Indian politician would dare, or even allowed to divide India. In fact, I truly believe that this calm after this court verdict is a sure sign that it is working. Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:29:56 GMT+1 addh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=45#comment62 Thoughts like (no 60) are completely out of focus of modern reality. You can't blame the common indian muslim for what Babur did. Its like somebody coming to your house and telling you that his ancestors used to live here so get out now.. Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:25:40 GMT+1 Jay http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=45#comment61 There are many people in this forum who are either hurt or angry for my (and few others’) questioning the existence of Ram and his relevance in this court case. Here we need to remember that the duty of a court of law is to check legal validity of an issue, NOT what is right, or what is wrong, what is ethical or what is moral (for a better understanding one can watch some nice videos by a Harvard Law school professor: (http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5). It is the duty of legislature (people’s representatives) and policy makers to consider those aspects (right-wrong, ethics-morality etc) before framing laws (within the framework of the constitution). If law and legislature start giving too much importance on personal “feelings” or religious faith, then it will be almost impossible for the system to function properly, in the long run (particularly in a secular democracy like India). Court can not decide if India want to remain secular or not, that is not our topic of discussion here either. Feelings of different people, (religious or social) faith of different group of people many times contradict each other. You can not fulfill all such faiths and beliefs (watch the movie “Bruce Almighty”). If it does, no court can punish a loving father or husband who is criminal/ illegal activities (e.g thief. No I did not say politician :)!In that context, how a court can rule that a historically non-existent person (considered as “minor”/ “in absensia” can be a party of a legal dispute? Moreover, how far we can stretch history to prove ownership? 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years….? How far? Will Indian judiciary accept the claim of an central African tribe over the whole world, including India (after all Humanity started there, as per scientific facts known so far)? Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:20:10 GMT+1 whoopdedoop http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=44#comment60 Whether or not there is evidence that "Ram" was a historical character (not that we are particularly qualified to understand any evidence in the spiritual realm or that other spiritual icons are dying to testify about the evidence of their existence in our courts anytime soon), it is clearly evident that temples in India were razed by thousands by Muslim and Christian invaders/traders. Nobody will bat an eyelid if a similar Babri masjid in Nazareth or a Ram temple in Mecca were razed to ground. Only in India we keep on trying to over-correct ourselves and being politically correct to the point of being ridiculous. Hindu zealots deserve their legal consequence as much as any other kind of zealots, now or anytime in the past, but this case has nothing to do with that. I truly fail to understand what is this controversy about - it is perfectly reasonable to have a Ram temple where a billion people believe Ram (their social, cultural, religious, spiritual icon) was born instead of a historical relic where nobody prayed in any recent times. Lets get it done and move on to the business of development. Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:10:39 GMT+1 surya1980 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=43#comment59 What was the necessity for Babar to construct a Masjid over the temple?Doesn't he find a anywhere in India?Shouldn't his Barbaric act needs a fitting reply?If he was a good ruler he should have constructed in plain land..If it was so his creation would have existed..He committed mistake and is getting paid...Muslims ask the state prior to 1992..Hindus ask the state prior to 1500..Masjid came in between and it shall not have the rights?Let them bring people who claim rights for it prior to BC?We welcomes it with proof? Fri 01 Oct 2010 14:43:54 GMT+1 Realist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=42#comment58 The Court delivered the best possible verdict in balancing justice, religious sentiment and national interest. Only perpetual complainers, religious nutjobs (ie comment # 53), and India haters would find it otherwise. Fri 01 Oct 2010 14:27:11 GMT+1 Autar Dhesi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=42#comment57 Over the years, courts have encroached upon the domain of an emaciated executive,especially since the beginning of coalition era.The executive is becoming increasingly dependent upon the judiciary for deciding issues that primarily fall in the arena of governance. It is nothing but an act of judicial politics, often used by the executive, especially when a minority is involved. An element of irrationality in thinking becomes clear when judges tell the world that they have found the birthplace of a mythical figure,and confirm it with judicial authority. The historians have to relearn writing and reading history.Poor souls, they seem to have wasted their time so far.The whole world now can see the true nature of the Indian state,high sounding pretensions notwithstanding.However, the Indian state is at cross roads now.It can either muddle through to gradually evolve as a democratic secular state both in form and substance or fall into abyss as a militant, religious state. Pandit Nehru was always worried about the latter eventuality. Indians have to sit up and seriously think why have states/areas ,where one minority or the other is dominant, been in serious political and social crisis, especially since 1960's? It looks that it is the blinkered approach of self-centred masters of Delhi to respond to genuine concerns of these people that needs to be critically examined by right thinking persons in the country. Let our rulers be blessed.Amen! Fri 01 Oct 2010 14:00:02 GMT+1 Eric http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=41#comment56 And what of the likes of the Hagia Sophia, the Mezquita, the Angkor Wat? We're discussing the 1500's? It's 2010 for crying out loud! Incredible that this is even a discussion or an issue in today's world. And to all and sundry, this is no comment on any given faith; One rather of disbelief at misplaced priorities. Fri 01 Oct 2010 13:41:47 GMT+1 Passingby http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=40#comment55 @Abdul Wahid: I am not aware of the legal precedence you have stated in your comment. However, we do have to consider the fact that this not just a piece of land anymore. It's a spark which in 1992 brought pain, violence, hatred and death. Considering the circumstances the court did not have any other option. Can you imagine what would have happened if the verdict had gone either way? Has India become more religiously tolerant than it was in 1992. Maybe a bit, but not as much we would like it to. With over 138 million Muslims (according to the 2001 census, I am sure the numbers are going to be much higher now) I do not think they are exactly a minority. Fri 01 Oct 2010 13:40:56 GMT+1 tridiv http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=40#comment54 In an otherwise fairly balanced article, this blatant statement..."Muslims were blamed for all ills..". Unfounded, malicious and outright rubbish. Please maintain a semblance of objectivity, Mr. Biswas.To Abdul Wahid, i would be very interested to know your definition of "minority". You consider the 160 million Muslims to be a minority? The way i see it is that every damn section of Indian population is a minority and no one has a monopoly over victim-hood. Everyone has earned their rights to complain in India, so to say 'this is a miscarriage of justice for muslims' is plain boring rhetoric.The way i look at this verdict is that it is a piece of positive judicial activism. The politicians should have settled this controversy long ago, but both BJP and Congress, busy with their caste/religious appeasement politics, failed miserably. Even though i am not up to date, i believe judiciary functions in India, in spite of all the backlogs etc. I also believe, that middle class educated Indians increasingly depend on judiciary to protect and advance their rights. If you had a scale comparing the nations, India would do fairly well on a "rule of law" index. I would say get on with judicial activism and asserting civil society to sideline the present inept politicians and hardliners. Fri 01 Oct 2010 13:19:00 GMT+1 MonDieu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=39#comment53 If the highest courts of our states are presided over such feeble and effeminate men as these, it does indeed give me reason to worry..."spirit of divine"? "formless and shapeless"? "present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations" ? Give me a break!I suppose it was invoked when seething mobs raped Christian nuns and burnt down churches and threatened to and did murder several innocent Christian leaders in Orissa. I suppose that it was invoked when Graham Staines and his two sons aged 6 and 10 were burnt alive while asleep in their station wagon. I presume the same "spirit of divine" was invoked when pregnant women were ripped open and those hapless infants quartered before their very eyes in Gujarat. And was it this very same "spirit" that was invoked when a beautiful Mughal edifice was vandalised in the name of vilifying the destruction of some antediluvian temple of questionable existence; or which gave the devil his due when justifying the said actions?I weep for my country. Fri 01 Oct 2010 13:18:35 GMT+1 Abdul Wahid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=38#comment52 The verdict is a shame on the Indian Judiciary System. It is a clear miscarriage of justice for Muslims. Although the ability of the judiciary system in upholding true justice had come into question during many intervals, such an unrivalled parallel had never been set. In any civil case, where property/land ownership is claimed between parties, the courts would look at the evidence of the proprietorship and the concept of possession. Let us remind ourselves that Property Law states that Possession in itself is a property right. Absent evidence to the contrary, it provides evidence of ownership. Possession of a thing for long enough can become ownership. In the same way, the passage of time can bring to an end the owner's right to recover possession of a thing. Possession is not a right but a (legal) fact which enjoys certain protection by the law. Prior to the 1949 drama, the Muslims clearly held proprietorship and possession of the land. Not only mere possession, but exercising their control over the land and the mosque. How come "judges" overlooked such an important legal fact?! It is a shame that the Judiciary raped true justice and passed a verdict just to appease a few Hindu Hardliners. Will this be the norm from now onwards? Lands owned by Muslims were taken over by force through a set-up drama and when the dispute reaches the court, it passes a terrible verdict. How could ownership be handed over to those who have no legal claim of ownership? This is a wrong precedence. It is unclear how this will pave the path for the thousands of mosques and churches which the Hindu hardliners believe are built after temples were destroyed. Even most Hindus strongly believe their revered deity Ram could not have been born in Ayodhya due to his mythical status, giving credit for the small minority's belief that their revered deity Ram could have been born in Ayodhya, would that necessitate claim of ownership? He was born many thousands, if not million, years ago. How will the judiciary system react if the aboriginal 'Dravidian' Southerners claim the same against the invading 'Aryan' Northerner's occurred in the recent times? Doubts are cast on the state-of mind of the judges when they were dealing this historical but important case. In fairness and equal treatment, for the Indian minority Muslims, nothing has changed. Both in 1992, when the mosque was demolished and the land taken over, and in 2010, when the verdict was passed, they were wronged. This has got nothing to do with the politics of religion. This is about justice, giving people what they rightfully own. This is about justice, upholding the rights of the minority. Both were not credited. Fri 01 Oct 2010 10:45:54 GMT+1 Ankiet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=37#comment51 After reading your blog i completely understood Eric Hoffer's quote that "Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth." (I m saying to you personally but not agree with your blog)Many said that decision is not base law. Those are giving completely misguided statement.Whoever read there verdict and know about case those know that Lora Ram him self (as a party) filed petition true there primary applicant "Hindu Mahasabha"..so discussion on lord rama in court is so obvious. Major two Hindu parties not raise question on Lora Rama and Hindu belief, those question rise by other parties. so court can't be silent on religious discussions (even as per constitution),there is no other religious courts are accepted by Constitution of India, these same courts, High courts, and supreme court have right to given verdict on any religious matters(Ayodhya is one of it, Courts give many decisions on many religious issues, its not new one. Indian courts have only right to give verdict as per continuation, there is no other authority to decide it) This is not only property matter, also this is not only one land plot matter, and its many religious issues are connecting it. n Court is only way to look after these religious matters under religious rights as per constitution.N Court did it. We should accept it... Fri 01 Oct 2010 10:30:37 GMT+1 India007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=37#comment50 Sorry not ATAL BIHARI VAJPEYI Mr LALKRISHNA ADVANI is responsible for KILING of 2000 TO 3000 INDIANS ( HINDU and MUSLIM)He was there at PLACE giving SPEECH to KARSEVAK I remember I was KID that time For me as an Hindu/SIKH it was SHAMEFUL to watch and what happened after that was HORRENDOUS , I prey this will not happen again . Because who SUFFER in Communal RIOTS is a COMMON MAN not POLITICIAN like LALKRISHNA ADVANI or NARENDRA MODI . But it was good VERDICT INDIA show to WOLD we far better than PAK****NIN PAK*****N HINDU TEMPLE WAS DEMOLISHED IN JUNE 2006 and COMMERCIAL BUILDING was CONSTRUCTED INDIA is BETTER SECULAR country I know we have some EXTREMIST but INDIA will come over them . Fri 01 Oct 2010 10:09:40 GMT+1 professor calculus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=36#comment49 Thanks India007 - I am sure there are many many good folks like you in India Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:56:29 GMT+1 India007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=35#comment48 It is a Good Verdict , I hope politician will not make issue of it .Is anyone been to AYODHYA then make comments look at some FACTS about HINDU MUSLIM RELATIONSHIP AYDHOYA PEOPLE DO NOT WANT ANY COMMUNAL RIOT 1. at RAMTOK the CORORATE LEADER HAJI ASAD IS A MUSLIM PERSON IN THAT AREA WHERE (85% HINDU VOTERS HE IS BEEN FROM LAST 15 YEARS )2. IN AYODHYA THERE ARE SOME MOSQUE which are protected by HINDUS(such as SHAH IBRAHIM MOSQUE in SWARGDAR, KOTWALI REGION and NIROCHAN region all MOSQUE are protected BY HINDUS3. MOHAMAND SHARIK is an MUSLIM who does all CEMETERY work for HINDU and MUSLIM 4. SADIK ALI ( textile industry ) is involve in PRODUCTION of Cloths wear by HINDU MONKS 5. MOST OF PEOPLE WHO SALE FLOWER AND ALL TO DEVOTES ARE MUSLIM FAMILIES THIS IS GROUND REALITY Mr ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYE is responsible for COMMUNAL RIOT His hands are BLOODED BY 2000 families of HINDU and MUSLIMSEverybody know who carried out GODHARA MR NARENDRA MODIBJP was loosing in ELECTION that time in GUJARAT MODI KILLED HINDI MONKSConstructing a MALL is ridiculous OPTION It is sentiments of PEOPLE so we should respect and RAM MANDIR and MOSQUE should BUILD together UNDER ONE ROOF INDIAN POLITICIAN doing same thing which BRITISH carried out DIVIDE AND RULE Because of some POLITICIAN INDIA is on the brink of PARTITION due to RELIGION I been to MOSQUE with my FRIENDS but never DISCRIMINATE people on the base of RELIGION .If you ask COMMON MAN what he needs is FOOD , SHELTER AND CLOTH Even I do WORSHIP everyday but if someone ask for HELP I do not ask him wheather he is MUSLIM , HINDU , CATHOLIC or SIKH.BJP and CONGRESS dividing the INDIANS but we are EDUCATED enough to find the TRUTH.FOR ME I THINK IT IS BETTER TO BUILD RAM MANDIR and MOSQUE under ONE ROOF . Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:40:54 GMT+1 choose http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=34#comment47 I can find you some thousands of people (like Biswas)in India. who are not happy with the court verdict and writes these type of blogs.we all know his blogs are not worth and not even true, wasting my time on writing this comment. just ignore him !! Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:34:55 GMT+1 legend_speaks http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=34#comment46 Mr. Biswas you are messed up i mean how do you only see the hindu nationalism ... and arab and muslim nationalism doesnt exist for you the reason why hindu nationalism has sprout is for the fact that muslims nationalism has exploted them much and still speudo intellectuals like yourself always needs to pamper them.people like you and THE HINDU newspaper see only one good and honourable man in kashmir thats gilani ..(quoting from frontline)and obviously you everywhere acknowledge the fact about the british colonialism .. and obviously muslim invaders didnt do any damage to india ... and JAYZA tax ? know about it .. prolly your fathers and grandfathers paid 10 times more tax to retain their faith too.and INdia is yet to become secular ... well yes britain an US are secular right ? oh sorry they dont only discriminate on religion they go one step further and discriminate on skin colourthe problem with muslims in troubled area is that they would study in madarsas and learn to be a radical while not expected from others tell me can this type of verdict come in afganistan over the lord buddha statue ? or any other muslim country for the matter ? people like you and M F Hussain take advantage of good nature of others and force them be radical. i am sure he is finding his FREEDOM in Qatar where there is no freedom of speech even Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:34:24 GMT+1 Prasad Reddy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=33#comment45 @19.30 Sep 2010, Satix - I second you , Satix. Hurray to you. Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:26:50 GMT+1 Venkatesh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=32#comment44 I Completely disagree with Jay and Biswas. My first question is are you people Hindus or belong to any other religion?? do you people read and know our epics?? How can you talk about the existence of Lord Ram?? If you are a Hindu did your parents thought this way of adverse thinking?? Regarding the judgement upto some extent i agree, because actual query is whether the land where the idols or masjid belongs to hindus or muslims, but it was clearly said the existance of lord rama and it is said that it was to hindus ONLY. More over I can say that we Hindus consider our country as secular country and we are broad minded we welcome the judgment given by Allahabad court, that the land should be divided b/w hindus and muslims, but in what way the part of land goes to muslims?? the judgement clearly says that its not a mosque there but its a temple there. so all the land only belongs to hindus, to prove our country is secular and not to hurt muslims the partition is given and there is no other reason that the land was shared. If Muslims urge supreme court this is a definite answer that they will lose the land shared to them even. More over behalf of the dispute we all were well educated and we all know the history. How babur came to India?? who is he to make an order to build mosque there?? we all know that he forcefully harrased hindus and occupied that Hindu land, so how a foreigner occupy another foreigner land?? Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:03:05 GMT+1 jaytirth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=31#comment43 "Just goes to show how much some of India has changed - it has learnt to laugh about what historian Ramachandra Guha calls a "pseudo-religious" controversy."-------------------------Reading the comments posted here, I doubt it. Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:01:49 GMT+1 jaytirth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=31#comment42 "Just goes to show how much some of India has changed - it has learnt to laugh about what historian Ramachandra Guha calls a "pseudo-religious" controversy."-------------------------Reading the comments post here, I doubt it. Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:01:43 GMT+1 addh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=30#comment41 I think looking at the judgement itself, the division of the land between the three looks fine as they couldnt prove their title deeds. But the court judgement that Lord Ram was actually born there sounds a little strange since he was a mythological figure rather than a historical figure. Also it is difficult to fathom on what evidence this could have been proven in court. Fri 01 Oct 2010 08:59:25 GMT+1 professor calculus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=29#comment40 Friends - let's try and keep the discussion focused and mature - and in line with the blog, i.e. the ruling. Naturally some are having their blood pressure affected and resorting to needless mud slinging and having to insult each other's religion.Indus - your remarks about Islamaphobia clearly crossed the boundary - which is why it's been removed.Religion seems to invoke such hatred amongst some - why? I would personally support Soutik's idea of a mall. Fri 01 Oct 2010 08:40:53 GMT+1 indus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=28#comment39 This post has been Removed Fri 01 Oct 2010 07:39:54 GMT+1 KashmiriKuku http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=28#comment38 I write about item 37 and about Soutik Biswas who mostly writes to earn his living by creating sensational and nonsense items.If they are considering Ram to be only a mythological figure though it will take a few centuries more, they will say that Lord Budha was never born and his gospel spread only mythologically. In a few more centrueis they will say Mahatma Gandhi was never born and is only a mythological figure. (Perhaps they will say the same about Sikh Gurus after another 2500 years). We do not need to go to US Universities for research purposes. We need to use only commonsense.If people like Soutik Biswas only start spreading the truth maybe they will never become famous/infamous. We must accept the fact that Lord Ram did exist in a human form and many stories about him are correct, though an exception or two could creep in giving the colour of unsurety about the event. Fri 01 Oct 2010 07:05:17 GMT+1 satyan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=27#comment37 As noted by Soutik, the Indian perspective of 2010 is completely different from that of 1992. The younger generation is more level headed and not interested in the petty politics of religion and hatred. let us all hope this verdict will start the process of reconciliation and put an end to the tensions created by vested interests. Fri 01 Oct 2010 05:44:49 GMT+1 irony http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=26#comment36 Reply to post 7. of Jay "As I said before I fully support the court verdict.But I do not know how court decided that the place is birth place of Hindu mythological figure Ram, when there is no proof (even circumstantial) that Ram, as a person ever existed in history (agreed by historians an archologists)! "You're just plain wrong - most of South Asian cultures originate from oral traditions. History doesn't mean written records; it also does mean oral records. Now, you can't go to some tribal region in Eastern India tell them that there is no 'written' evidence for Ramayana: they would call you & me as fools, because their narrative embedded in their age-old oral traditions, much before the arrival of Babur like invaders. Probably we should do some higher research at U.S. universities: that include NASA evidence of bridge between Sri Lanka and India underneath the ocean. In addition, there was circumstantial evidence from the then director of Indian Archaeology (when Indira Gandhi was Prime-minister of India) that there was a Ram temple at the site, when Babur invaded, he did destroy the temple to construct the Babri masjid. You and BBC never talk about actual history - because it'd offend your readership. What happens when invaders in any history of a country destroy the then living traditions? Instead built their own history. When British came they didn't destroy any mosques, instead they preserved it unlike medieval invaders. We can distort history as much as we can fit into modern political correctness.This particular group, in whichever country they're in, (whether America or India or even London) always demand for special rights for their own constructions claiming that it's their land.In near future, I don't see a country called England does exist anymore. (Thanks to BBC) Fri 01 Oct 2010 05:17:43 GMT+1 promodsharma http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/09/ayodhya_verdict_a_happy_compromise.html?page=25#comment35 This post has been Removed Fri 01 Oct 2010 04:22:02 GMT+1