Ayodhya Verdict: Indian Muslims will always be second-class citizens

The so-called “historic” verdict by the judges of the Allahabad High Court in India has been welcomed by rabid Hindu fanatics because they now feel they can go ahead and demolish all the remaining mosques in India. Instead of recognizing that Muslims were the owners of the land on which the Babri Masjid had stood for over 500 years, the judges (fearing a violent Hindu reaction) divided the property equally among the three claimants (two of which were Hindu organizations).

Now any Hindu can claim that any property owned by a Muslim has been built on sacred ground (probably where one of those thousands of Hindu gods was born or had defecated there). The poor Muslim will then have no choice but to hand his property over to the Hindu fanatic, and very soon most of India’s Muslims will be forced to convert to Hinduism.

The entire Muslim world should recognize this threat to Indian Muslims and demand that India do everything it can to protect them.

20 thoughts on “Ayodhya Verdict: Indian Muslims will always be second-class citizens”

  1. Hend: the Kaaba had been used as a place of worship ever since Abraham built it (I think about 4,000 years ago). It was being used by pre-Islamic Arabs for a long time until Islam was revealed. It was never taken by force from the infidels, they all converted to Islam within a short time (and not by force, although initially there were some wars between the two groups, who were closely related to each other).

  2. Welcome back, Hend. I was wondering why you’d disappeared. I even thought Yusha’s black magic finally worked on you.
    For your info, the Mughals were not the kind of people who would destroy places of worship (neither, for that matter, did any of the early Muslims). But of course it’s impossible to convince a bigot like you, although even Westerners agree that both Jews and Christians were treated well by Muslims during the Arab and Ottoman rule in Europe. The only Mughal who was deeply religious was Aurangzeb, but he too did not demolish any temples.
    Again, if the Muslim claim was time-barred, why did the present verdict give them one third of the disputed property?
    Finally, Indians now have no need of courts: whenever there is a property dispute, they can simply divide the property equally among the claimants, saving a lot of time and money (read my letter in The Hindu of October 3).

  3. nitin – “I would like to ask you, how would you feel if1/3rd part of Mecca was given Jews or Hindus?”

    for your information,

    firstly the Qaaba at mecca already belonged to a middle eastern religion and was taken by force.

    secondly, hindus cannot accept qaaba as it belongs to another religion

    refer to the disputes of temple mount and dome of the rock and count less churches and temples. my own analysis is when islam came to existence, already all significant symbols or faiths and important places belonged to other religions. for the lack of having its own places and symbols, islam began to take over places of other religions and once that was done, many times, communities attached to the place also accepted conversions. this is the reason that top 3 religious places of jews and hindus were vandalised and usurped by muslims. nothing personal yaar.

  4. I will answer you guys one by one.

    Mahdi – remember me? Hend? I respond to Lakhoo’s writings just to rub salt in his partition wounds…nothing khaas yaar!

    Nitin – I will reply to you in a separate post as them oderators will reject this one and waste my time.

    IMO – BS, the excavated site was witnessed by memebers of both litigating parties and onfirmed the findings of a ‘massive temple strcuture’ right below the mosque. Period. Go fool someone else…may be Lakhoo miyan.

    Lakhoo – “statue of limitations”, I knw finally your defence will come to this because you cannot deny the ASI evidence. NO PROBLEM, because I will answer your question. The statue of limitations apply to those disputes which take place when such a constitutional law is IN existence. So to start with your argument is flawed. Secondly, the mosque was disputed by Hindus immediately upon building and there are reports of RIOTS at those times, well documented. There is a record of a petition being filed with the Delhi salatanat. So your argument is already out of the window. Thirdly, Nirmohi Akhada once again filed a petition 1880 with the British government thus establishing a trail of applications for the same dispute. FINALLY (already too much naa?)…in 1949 when government locked the mosque…MUSLIMS failed to file an appeal within 6 years and thus their claim of possession on the mosque itself was TIME BARRED. This is exactly how HC dismissed the petition of the Sunni WAKF board, Barred by limitation because the mosque was never in the possession of Muslims since 1949.

    By your argument if Hindus take over all the mosques that will also be fair because you seem to think its ok to simply forcibly do these things…as i once said…every action has a counter action..the stae of subcontinent is a consequence…look inside you then talk….else will end up like yusha or LtGen

    Remember me? Hend? Risk an argument? no? ok!

  5. @bodfod, zorawer SINGH and Nitin

    It seems to me that the 3 of you have recently started reading blogs on Chowrangi. I say that because you actually cared to comment on (the great) Shakir Lakhani’s Blog. Do me a favour…click on the author’s name under the title of the blog and view all the previous articles by this great man (seriously…do it). You will realise that he has an uncanny knack of writing irrational venow-spewing blogs on anything and everything under the sun closely related (or not) to India.

    Born in India (just before the partition…is that right Shakir bhai) and then migrated to Pakistan, this legend of ‘I hate India’ blogs has spent more than 60 years of his life convincing himself and others that anything that India or Indians do (or do not) or anything that happens (or not) in India is wrong in some way or the other or at least can be mocked upon.

    Of course, we have our share of such legends on this side of the border too. These are the people who even in their grave or on the funeral pyre would still be hoping that the other country would burn down to ashes.

    An earnest suggestion for the 3 of you…get a dog (if you don’t have one already) and spend your time and efforts teaching it to use the toilet seat. Cheers!

  6. bodfod : if you’re a highly-educated Hindu (which I doubt), you would have known that there is such a thing as “statue of limitations”. This means that in case of a property dispute, if no claim is lodged within a certain period (usually 5 to 10 years), the person holding the land is the owner. In the case of the Babri Masjid, the property had been in posession of Muslims since 1528 (for 472 years). Even if it had been built on the ruins of a temple, it should not have been demolished. The BJP, with its rabid anti-Muslim bias, destroyed the mosque to gain popularity among Hindus. The Allahabad High Court verdict will encourage Hindus like you to demolish all existing mosques and churches in India. By the way, Indian judiciary has lost its self-respect (after this verdct), which can be restored only if India’s Supreme Court reverses the judgement.

  7. @Imo: This is just simply BS.Forget about the ancient time even now as yo read this there is an idol of Rama over there, go have a look your self.Secondly there were Muslim judges too who have sanctioned this verdict.
    Shakir lakhani is just jealous that like Pakistan there was no violence in India, as he expected it would be after the verdict.
    I would like to ask you, how would you feel if1/3rd part of Mecca was given Jews or Hindus?
    But Hindus are more tolerant, they tolerated that mosque for centuries, and are still ready to share that 1/3rd part with Muslims.
    Secondly if we would consider Muslims as Second class, there there would be no Muslim president, actors,cricketers and CEOs in India.
    The richest Muslim in the word is Indian, we give then equal place for talent and they, unlike Pakistan where we have never heard a Hindu name , in politics nor in any other filed , So do a fact check before you post BS and .ake your self look like a fool in front of ur own countries citizens, mr Lakhani.
    Hope you would take this suggestion seriously if you really care bout your dignity.



  9. @bodfod
    The ASI did not find any temple underneath the Babri mosque. One of my friend’s dad works with the ASI and he is a hindu if you want to know that, told me that his dad told that there was nothing special in Ayodhaya at the time of Babar, it was just a regular village. Only after the construction of the mosque the hindus started the claim for that site.
    May be the SC can throw some light in this. Even if the whole land is declared to be Muslim’s. I will be gald to give the hindus their share as they hold that land so dearly.

  10. Justice has prevailed. Archeological evidences of a demolished ancient temple underneath the mosque proved that the disputed structure or ‘mosque’ was illegal. This was of course supported by ancient documents that the land was a place used for worshipping by Hindus much before the disputed structure was built.

    I am not sure why this decision causes problems to you as the Hindus are the ones being wronged by having to surrender 1/3 of the land for a new mosque.

    This issue once again brings to the fore how Islam was built by demolishing other people’s faiths. Examples are plenty from Temple Mount, Dome of the Rock to Indonesia. I am sure the Muslims of India are mature and magnanimous enough to recognize the Hindu claims over their important places of worship.

    Your opinion does not really count as you are in Pakistan and a nobody but please feel free to be extremely angry and frustrated…please…you are welcome.


Leave a Reply