Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Ayodhya Debate

Discussion in 'National Politics' started by DaRk KnIght, Sep 3, 2010.

?

Ayodhya issue: Which one you support??

  1. Support Ram Mandir at all costs.

    41.5%
  2. Support mosque at all costs.

    3.1%
  3. Support them based on the court verdict.

    21.5%
  4. Support some other structure other than a temple/mosque there(School/Hospital etc).

    26.2%
  5. Maintain Status quo.

    3.1%
  6. No idea/Confused/others

    4.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Karthic Sri

    Karthic Sri <b>STAR MEMBER of the MONTH</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    424
    You are the first person who has said so..lol

    Anyway its just that I don't want any more divisions in India. And this is my personal belief.
     
  2. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    Correct me if I am wrong. But doesit not apply to muslims too?

    Ever since muslim invasions, Hindus have not have had any peace. Golden Time for muslims to apply some balm.
     
  3. Karthic Sri

    Karthic Sri <b>STAR MEMBER of the MONTH</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    424
    Dont you know the burden of secularism always falls on the shoulders of the Hindus in India and in India secularism = minorityism. :rolleyes2:
     
  4. DaRk KnIght

    DaRk KnIght Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,142
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    What an irony!!

    Holy places of HINDUS have been destroyed yet responsibility to maintain unity lies on Hindus...:pop:
     
  5. Sid

    Sid Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    283
    In the Name of Religion ​


    Let's take up the explanation provided by the theology of Islam derived from the Quran and the Hadis.

    Ibn Ishaq, the first biographer of the Prophet, devotes many pages to a description of Arab polytheism at the time when Islam started taking shape. Every Arab household, he tells us, had an idol of some God or Goddess. He also gives the names of many idols which were housed in sanctuaries maintained by different tribes across the Arab peninsula. The Ka‘ba at Mecca which housed 360 idols was only one of these sanctuaries, though it was the most prestigious. One of the idols in the Ka’ba was named Allah. Though it had some primacy over other idols, it was far from being an exclusive deity. Besides, there were many sacred groves and places of pilgrimage visited by Arabs on special occasions.

    At the same time, Ibn Ishaq informs us that Monotheism was becoming an attractive creed among some sections of the Arab elite. It was the creed of the Roman, Iranian and Abyssinian empires which inspired awe and admiration among the Arabs at that time. Many Jews and Christians were present, individually or in communities, in the more important Arab towns. These People of the Book took great pride in their worship of the one and only God and looked down upon the Arabs who had had no Prophet, who possessed no Book and who worshipped stones and stocks. They aroused a sense of inferiority in the minds of those Arabs who came in close contact with them but who were not equipped with an alternate theology that could defend their own Gods and Goddesses. Such Arabs looked forward to the day when Arabia also would have a Prophet and a Book of its own.

    Those who have compared the Bible and the Quran know how close the two are in spirit and language on the subject of idols and idol-worshippers. Like Jehovah of the Bible, Allah also advances his claim to be the one and only God. He denounces the mushriks (idolaters) as the doubly damned category of kafirs (unbelievers) when compared to the other category, the People of the Book. The idols, proclaims Allah while abrogating the so-called Satanic Verses, are mere names invented by the ancestors of the Arabs. They have neither eyes nor ears nor hands nor feet and can, therefore, neither help nor harm. They cannot respond to prayers and will fail to save their worshippers from bell on the Day of Judgement. They will themselves burn in the fire of hell together with those who worship them. Meanwhile, they render their worshippers napak (abominable) in the eyes of Allah.

    In the early days of Islam, Muslims were too weak to practice iconoclasm at Mecca. They had to rest content with expressing their contempt for idols. Food which had first been offered to idols was spurned. Names which referred to some pagan God or Goddess were changed as soon as the bearers entered the fold of Islam. But the clarion call had come. “Herd them together,” said Allah, “those who commit transgression and those whom they worship, and start them on the road to hellfire” (Quran, 37.22-23). The Prophet saw Amr bin Lubayy “dragging his intestines in Fire.” Amr was a second century king, supposed to have brought idols from Syria and set them up in Arabia.

    Medina where Muslims were stronger witnessed some acts of iconoclasm even before the Prophet migrated to that city. Ibn Ishaq tells us how the idol of Amr Ibnul-Jamuh was stolen at night by a group of Muslims and thrown into a cesspit, again and again till Amr lost faith in it and became a Muslim. At nearby Quba, Sahl broke up the idols of his tribe at night and took the pieces to a Muslim woman who used them as fuel.

    The Prophet made iconoclasm a pious performance for all Muslims for all time to come when he practised it himself on the very day he conquered Mecca. “When the Prophet,” writes Ibn Ishaq, “prayed the noon prayer on the day of the conquest he ordered that all the idols which were round the Ka‘ba should be collected and burnt with fire and broken up.” Citing some other sources, the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, “Muhammad when he entered Mecca as victor is stated to have struck them in the eyes with the end of his bow before he had them dragged down and destroyed by fire.” Pictorial representations of Ali standing on the shoulders of the Prophet and tearing down the idol of Hubal from top of a Ka‘ba wall, have been published by Shias.

    Soon after, expeditions were sent to other parts of Arabia for doing what had been done at Mecca. Idols were smashed and temples destroyed or converted into mosques everywhere, Muslim poets vied with each other to record the events in rapturous verse. Fazal bin al-Mulawwih sang:

    Had you seen Muhammad and his troops,
    The day the idols were smashed when he entered,
    You would have seen God’s light become manifest,
    In darkness covering the face of idolatry.


    And Kab bin Malik:

    We foresook al-Lat, al-Uzza and Wudd
    We stripped off their necklaces and earrings.
    And al-Mustaughir Bin Rabia who was a warrior as well as a poet:
    I smashed Ruda so completely that
    I left it a black ruin in a hollow.


    “Growing Islam,” concludes the Encyclopaedia of Islam, “was from the very beginning intent upon the destruction of all traces of pagan idolatry and was so successful that the anti-quarians of the second and third century of the Hadira could glean only very scanty details. Some of the idols were made use of for other purposes, as for example, the idol Dhul-Kalasa… which was worshipped at Tabala, a place on the road from Mekka to Yaman in the time of Ibn al-Kalbi (about 200 A.D.), was used as a stepping stone under the door of the mosque at Tabala. Other stones which had been worshipped as idols were actually used as corner-stones of the Ka‘ba.”

    Muslim historians tell us on the authority of the Prophet that idolaters of Arabia had set up idols in places which were meant to be mosques when they were established for the first time by Abraham. The mosque of Ka‘ba, we are told, had been built by Abraham at the very centre of the earth. Those who dismiss Rama as mythological gossip and deny him a place of birth at Ayodhya may well enquire whether Abraham was a historical person who actually presided over the building of the Ka‘ba.

    It is, however, recorded history that the armies of Islam did everywhere what had been done in Arabia, as they advanced into Iran, Khorasan, Transoxiana, Seistan, Afghanistan and India. Hundreds of thousands of Fire Temples of the Zoroastrians, Buddhist monasteries and Hindu temples disappeared or yielded place to mosques, ziarats and dargahs. Modern archaeology, has reconstructed what happened along the trail of Islamic invasion of all these ancient lands.

    Maulana Minhaj-us-Siraj, the thirteenth century historian, sums up the theology of Islam vis-a-vis idols and idol-temples when he comes to Mahmud of Ghazni in his Tabqat-i-Nasiri. “He was endowed,” he writes, “with great virtues and vast abilities; and the same predominant star was in the ascendant at his birth as appeared at the dawn of Islam itself. When Sultan Mahmud ascended the throne of sovereignty his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all mankind within the pale of Islam when he converted so many thousands of idol-temples into masjids and captured many of the cities of Hindustan… He led an army to Naharwala of Gujarat, and brought away Manat, the idol from Somnath, and had it broken into four parts, one of which was cast before the centre of the great masjid at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan’s palace, and the third and fourth were sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively.” Mahmud’s coins struck at Lahore in the seventh year of his reign describe him as the “right hand of the Caliph” and “the breaker of idols.”

    This is the simple and straightforward explanation of why Islamic invaders desecrated the idols of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, destroyed Hindu temples and converted them into mosques. It covers all facts, completely and consistently, and leaves no loopholes.
     
  6. Rudrakx

    Rudrakx Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    218
    This is what is called Indian Secularism !
     
  7. Rudrakx

    Rudrakx Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    218
    Apply the same logic for Islamic Countries. They destroyed temple and built a mosque for a "purpose" (guess what?) and you are suggesting same for the cause which is exactly opposite to their "purpose".
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2011
  8. Optimist

    Optimist Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    127
    The HC judgement was fair. Donno y SC rejected it?!
     
  9. Karthic Sri

    Karthic Sri <b>STAR MEMBER of the MONTH</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    424
    An interesting interview with Teesta Setalvad about the Ayodhya Issue -

    ps:- Take it up with a pinch of salt and open Right wing and veiled Hindu bashing. :wink:

    Q in straight, Answers in Italics.

    The particular POV was interest was the two Muslim guy's view which was bolded in Red and how this lady tactfully evaded the question on Uniform Civil Code (bolded in blue)
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Karthic Sri

    Karthic Sri <b>STAR MEMBER of the MONTH</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    424
    Because none of the parties were interested in sharing the land with the others and each one wanted full possession of the entire disputed land. :tsk: (Fools IMHO)

    Also the SC's observation was that in cases of title suit, there must be a winner and in the judges' words - The High Court has gone on a very new path
     
  11. Karthic Sri

    Karthic Sri <b>STAR MEMBER of the MONTH</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    424
    @RoYaN and Coltsfan : -

    This is exactly why I said the judgment will never come in a way as to be perceived as anti-Hindu:-

    Even the Muslims know that removing the idols of Ram Lalla and stopping the pujas will not go down well with Hindus, no matter whom.

     
  12. Sid

    Sid Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    283
    All relevant British government records followed by the District Gazetteer Faizabad compiled and published by the Congress government in 1960 declare with one voice that the so-called Babari mosque at Ayodhya is standing on the debris of a Ramjanmasthan temple demolished by the order of Babar in 1528. Syed Shahabuddin, JNU historians, and. self-styled ‘secular’ scholars and leaders are hotly contesting that the existence and demolition of such a temple is a myth floated by the British in pursuance of their policy of ‘divide and rule’. Syed Shahabuddin and many Muslim divines go a step further and assert that neither Babar nor any other Muslim for that matter would take into his head to erect a mosque by displacing a temple, for, they argue, such a mosque would not be a mosque in the eye of the Shari’ah and would be liable to demolition by the Muslims themselves.

    With this idea in mind, Syed Shahabuddin is going about proclaiming that, if it is shown independently of the British sources that the Babari mosque has displaced a temple, he would pull it down with his own hands and hand it over to the Hindus.

    The challenge is worth taking, and I hereby do it with good grace, on behalf of those who place truth above politics.

    Well, granting for the nonce that the Babari mosque cannot be shown to have displaced a temple, there are certain other mosques which can indisputably be shown to have done so. Is Syed Shahabuddin prepared to keep his word in the case of such mosques? It is common knowledge that most of the mosques built by the Muslim invaders stand on land grabbed or extorted from the Kafirs. And what about the Ka’bah itself?

    Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman, the well known Muslim historian who died in an accident recently, modifies the stand of the Muslim divines thus: ‘It is also thinkable that some mosque was erected close to or at a short distance from a temple demolished for some special reason, but never was a mosque built on the site of a temple anywhere.’ (See his Babri Masjid, 3rd print, Azamgarh: Darul Musannifin Shibli Academy, 1987, p. 19.)

    As regards the verdict of the Shari’ah, it is true that there are theologico-juristic rulings to the effect that no mosque can be built on land grabbed or illegally/illegitimately acquired. See for example the great Fatawa-i Alamgiri, Vol. 16, p 214. But the question is, Do they hold true for land acquired in Jihad as well? The answer has to be an emphatic ‘No’. The Prophet has made it clear that all land belongs to God or the Prophet (A’lamu ann’l-arza li’llah-i wa rasul-i-hi), and, obviously, through the Prophet to the Muslims (Bukhari, II, Kitab al-Jibad wa’s- Siyar, Hadith 406). Iqbal puts the following words, in a Persian verse, into the mouth of Tariq, the great conqueror of Spain : Har mulk mulk-i ma’st ki mulk-i Khuda-i ma’st. That is, all land belongs to the Muslims, because it belongs to their God. Ibn Taymiyyah, the 14th century theologian and jurist, argues that Jihad simply restores lands to the Muslims, to whom they rightly belong. This serves to vouchsafe to them the moral right to extort lands in Jihad from others.

    Thus, the argument from the Shari’ah has no leg to stand upon.

    Now, I proceed to cite certain purely Muslim sources beyond the sphere of British influence to show that the Babari mosque has displaced a Hindu temple-the Ramjanmasthan temple, to be precise-wholly or partly.

    First, an indirect evidence. In an application dated November 30, 1858, filed by one Muhammad Ashghar, Khatib and Mu’azzin, Babari Masjid, to initiate legal proceedings against ‘Bairagiyan-i Janmasthan’, the Babari mosque has been called ‘masjid-i Janmasthan’ and the courtyard near the arch and the pulpit within the boundary of the mosque, ‘maqam Janmasthan ka’. The Bairagis had raised a platform in the courtyard which the applicant wanted to be dismantled. He has mentioned that the place of Janmasthan had been lying unkempt/in disorder (parishan) for hundreds of years and that the Hindus performed worship there (maqam Janmasthan ka sad-ha baras se parishan para rahta tha. Ahl-i Hunud puja karte they). See Sayyid Shahabuddin Abdur Rahman, op, cit., pp. 29-30. Well, if the Babari mosque is the Janmasthan mosque, its courtyard is the Janmasthan, and the Hindus had all along been carrying out their worship, all that implies that there must have been some construction there as part of a (Janmasthan) temple, which Mir Baqi partly demolished and partly converted into the existing Babari mosque, with or without Babar’s approval. And the Hindus had no alternative but to make do with the temple-less courtyard. Otherwise, it is simply unthinkable that they might have been performing worship for such a long time and on such a sacred place without a proper temple.

    Failure of Jihad

    My second document is the Hadiqah-i Shuhada by one Mirza Jan, an eyewitness as well as active participant in the Jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wajid Ali Shah’s regime in 1855 for recapture of Hanuman Garhi (a few hundred yards from the Babari mosque) from the Hindus. The book was ready just after the failure of the Jihad and saw the light of day in the following year, viz. in 1856, at Lucknow. Ra’is Ahmad Jafari has included it as chapter IX in his book entitled Wajid Ali Shah aur Un-ka Ahd (Lucknow: Kitab Manzil, 1957), after, however, omitting what he considered unnecessary but without adding a word from his side.

    Now, let us see what information we gather from it, germane to our enquiry. Mirza Jan states that ‘wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins, teachers, and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise, they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too, from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father. Where there stood the great temple (of Ramjanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, and, where there was a small mandap (pavilion), there they erected a camp mosque (masjid-i mukhtasar-i qanati). The Janmasthan temple is the principal place of Rama’s incarnation, adjacent to which is the Sita ki Rasoi. Hence, what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A. H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan! The mosque is still known far and wide as the Sita ki Rasoi mosque. And that temple is extant by its side (aur pahlu mein wah dair baqi hai)’ (p. 247).

    It must be borne in mind that Mirza Jan claims to write all this on the basis of older records (kutub-i sabiqah) and contemporary accounts.

    My third document is a chapter of the Muraqqah-i Khusrawi, otherwise known as the Tarikh-i Avadh, by Shykh Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1811-1893), who happened to be an eyewitness to much that happened during Wajid Ali Shah’s regime. The work was completed in 1869 but could Pot see the light of day for over a century. Only one manuscript of it is extant and that is in the Tagore Library of Lucknow University. A press copy of it was prepared by Dr. Zaki Kakorawi for publication with the financial assistance of the Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Memorial Committee, U.P., Lucknow. The committee vetoed the publication of its chapter dealing with the Jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi for recapture of Hanuman Garhi from the Bairagis, from its funds, on the ground that its publication would not be opportune in view of the prevailing political situation, with the result that Dr. Kakorawi had to publish the book minus that chapter in 1986, for the first time. Later, however, lie published the chapter separately, and independently of any financial or other assistance from the committee in 1987 from the Markaz-i Adab-i Urdu 137, Shahganj, Lucknow-3, under the title ‘Amir Ali Shahid aur Ma’rkah-i Hanuman Garhi’.

    It is a pity that, thanks to our thoughtless ‘secularism’ and waning sense of history, such primary sources of medieval Indian history are presently in danger of suppression or total extinction. Dr. Kakorawi himself laments that ‘suppression of any part of any old composition or compilation like this can create difficulties and misunderstandings for future historians and researchers’ (p. 3).

    Well, what light does our author, Shykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami, have to throw on the issue of demolition versus non-existence of the Janmasthan temple? The opening paragraph of his book is akin to the passage quoted above from Mirza Jan’s Hadiqah-i Shuhada. I give below the paragraph in the author’s own words, omitting very few details: ‘According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from the first to build mosques, monasteries, and inns, spread Islam, and put (a stop to) non-Islamic practices, wherever they found prominence (of kufr). Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura, Bindraban, etc., from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babari mosque was built up in 923(?) A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple (butkhane Janmasthan mein) in Faizabad-Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of Rama’s father’ (p. 9). ‘Among the Hindus it was known as Sita ki Rasoi’ (p. 10). The passage has certain gaps, thanks to the wretched condition of the manuscript, which I have tried to fill within brackets.

    Dr. Kakorawi has appended to the book an excerpt from the Fasanah-i Ibrat by the great early Urdu novelist. Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787-1867), which constitutes our fourth document. It says that ‘a great mosque was built on the spot where Sita ki Rasoi is situated. During the regime of Babar, the Hindus had no guts to be a match for the Muslims. The mosque was built in 923(?) A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan… Aurangzeb built a mosque on the Hanuman Garhi… The Bairagis effaced the mosque and erected a temple in its place. Then idols began to be worshipped openly in the Babari mosque where the Sita ki Rasoi is situated,’ (pp. 71-72). The author adds that ‘formerly, it is Shykh Ali Hazin’s observation which held good’ and quotes the following Persian couplet of the Shykh:

    Bi-bin karamat-i butkhanah-i mara aiy Shaikh!
    Ki chun kharab shawad khanah-i Khuda garded
    Which means: O Shykh! just witness the miracle of my house of idols, which, when desecrated, or demolished, becomes the house of God (a mosque). So, purporting to mean that formerly temples were demolished for construction of mosques, the author, Surur, laments that ‘the times have so changed that now the mosque was demolished for construction of a temple (on the Hanuman Garhi)’ (p. 72).

    Clinching the Issue

    The forming four-fold documentary evidence leads us to certain incontrovertible conclusions, which can be stated as under:

    1. That, in their zeal to hit Hinduism and spread Islam, the Muslim rulers had the knack of desecrating or demolishing Hindu temples and erecting mosques, etc., in their place-bigger mosques in place of bigger temples and smaller mosques in place of smaller temples.

    2. That there did exist a temple called the temple of Janmasthan at Ayodhya, where Rama is believed to have incarnated and that adjacent to it was what is called Sita ki Rasoi, which might originally have been part of it.

    3. That, like Muslim rulers who desecrated Mathura, Vrindavana, etc., Babar chose Ayodhya for spread of Islam and replacement of temples by mosques, thanks to its supreme importance as a holy place of the Hindus, and in 1528, under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Musa Ashiqan, got the so-called Babari mosque erected in displacement of the Rama Janmasthan temple, certain relics of which appear to have persisted at least till 1855.

    4. That the Babari mosque was also called ‘masjid-i Janmasthan’ and ‘masjid-i Sita ki Rasoi’ from long before 1855.

    5. That the Hindus had long been carrying on worship at the Rama Janmasthan even after the replacement of the Janmasthan temple by the Babari mosque.

    6. That the foregoing facts are yielded by authentic Muslim records and have not been fabricated by the much-maligned British to ‘divide and rule’.

    These conclusions are irresistible and should clinch the issue of demolition versus non-existence of the Ramjanmasthan temple.

    Indian Express, February 26, 1990
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. WARrior

    WARrior 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    92
    nothing of that sort. i am not influenced with any thapar.

    my only point was and is that religious difference has nothing to do with basic or nonbasic ideological differences. the point is only 1 and shudnt be misunderstood that, abrahmic religions can coexist coz they are of similar type and hindu-muslims cant coz they arent of same type is BS.
     
  14. Karthic Sri

    Karthic Sri <b>STAR MEMBER of the MONTH</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    424
    Of course Abhrahamai and Dharmic religions can co-exist, but the fact of the matter is wherever they co-exist, they don't have an amicable history. Fact.

    And yes deep down the core concept of both Abrahamic and Dharmic religions are different or that the three Abrahamic religions have more in common between themselves than any one of them has with a Dharmic religion. There is no point in disputing it. Or if you wish to dispute please explain how. I am all ears.

    In this particular case I said they cannot co-exist because of the history of that particular site. It is just plain foolishness to keep fire and cotton together.
     
  15. WARrior

    WARrior 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    92
    see the point i wanna make is..more than hindu and muslims................we have seen christians and muslims hate each other..............right from its existence till today.........jihad has been fought against the christian tyranny (from crusades till todays WoT).

    We in india know what we see. its like, a frog in the well thinks thats the world. As a matter of fact, Muslims and Christians have more hatred against each other rather than Muslims and Hindus. And whatever Hindu Muslims hatred we know is coz of Pakistan.Its local, hence we think thats the reality. Otherwise, Iran, Kazakhastan, Lebanon, Turkey, Malasiya, Indonasia etc love and respect hindus and including these and others like saudi, Egypt, UAE, Morocco have very good relations with India tough i aint sure about the thoughts of these 4 countries regarding hindus.

    see the point i am stressing right from my 1st post regarding this topic is, religion or any sub religion is on its own. its has history of exploding against the other WHETHER it is Abrahamic of Dharmic. THATS NEVER THE CRITERIA. so if in jerusalem these 3 religion can coexist in utter peace (which have a history of massacres for more than a millenia), Hindu and Muslims definately can. What we see for these 800 years is only mistrust but not animosity. Never we saw any mughal emperor massacring hindus like we saw in case of christians and muslims. Even today in India we see mistrust against musilms and vice versa but never like that of between christians and muslims. they have a HISTORY.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page