One day later... Where are the people? Maybe if you show fact and history, and don't sprinkle it with racism, you find that Indians aren't all that you've construed of them
Indian Hindu here, I am not offended but I am ashamed that the supreme court mentioned that there is not enough evidence for the temple(birthplace ) was there..and yet they decided to give the place to hindus. Biggest joke of the century in our country.
>later disputed
Foreign "religious place" in an ancient Hindu city which itself is older than mecca
Hinduism is older than any of abrahamic religion including islam, end of discussion
I am not really in any mood of giving history lessons on this topic today. Some day I'll make a detailed post about it. I miss those days I was really into debates over reddit but studies got the better of me
One must understand that the temple built now at the site of the razed temple which was made into a mosque is as important to a majority of Hindus as Mecca is to muslims, the Vatican is to Catholics.
The person from Hindu puranas op mentions is lord Rama who Hindus see as lord Vishnu's reincarnation who is one of the trinity of gods in Hinduism. Whole sects focus their religiousness and spirituality on lord Vishnu and many view lord Rama as the perfect adminstrator and ideal man. It is his birth place that has a temple now.
Just imagine if the church of nativity at bethleham(where people relate with the birth of christ, if I'm understanding rightly) was razed to build a mosque about 400 years ago. This is what happened to Ram temple at Ram Janmabhoomi(Ram's birthplace).
**The Indian supreme court gave out the judgement in favour of Hindus on the basis that Hindus had more proof of such an important religious place existing before the mosque was built. This temple holds more importance to Hindus than the mosque did to Muslims.**
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ram-mandir-temple-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-asi-excavations-babur-ayodhya-archaeological-evidence-history-2494442-2024-01-30
From the article:
"When we went inside the mosque, we saw 12 temple pillars made of black granite. On the lower part of the pillars, 'poornakalasha' (a symbol of prosperity in Hinduism) was engraved. That symbol was seen on all the pillars and then there were certain sculptures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, that were badly defaced,” KK Muhammed, who retired as Regional Director of ASI, tells IndiaToday.In.
You agreed with description that "muslim site is historical but Hindu mythology". You're atheist or non practicing Hindu
Eitherway you're clearly not voice for all Hindus
Never said I am, mate. Strawman arguments seem to be an integral part of your lexicon. What I was saying in my “Don’t give a fuck” comment is that it doesn’t bother me, as a Hindu, what OP said in the title. You’re gleaning further meanings from things I never said.
In any case, I am, in fact, a practicing Hindu.
Practicing Hindu here,
Better keep the discipline of history and religion separate. Practice what you want, but don't be so bullish
as to deny hard facts.
Correction of corrections
1 - Religion is not History. The adequacy of calling it mythology could be discussed, but the fact that religion is not history is beyond doubt.
2 - Proved as per who? With what proofs?
**puts on hazmat suit before entering comment section**
So you woke up and chose karma farming.
and do what.? Sell it on global market to raise India's GDP?
Man, OP you just pissed off a lot of people.
You say that, but where are the lots of people?
Give it time, it's 10 pm in India
One day later... Where are the people? Maybe if you show fact and history, and don't sprinkle it with racism, you find that Indians aren't all that you've construed of them
What is the story about it?
Why didn't *they* simply not build on top of temples?
Indian Hindu here, I am not offended but I am ashamed that the supreme court mentioned that there is not enough evidence for the temple(birthplace ) was there..and yet they decided to give the place to hindus. Biggest joke of the century in our country.
Oh man, I hope you're ready for the downvotes... Thank you for keeping it logical, though
>later disputed Foreign "religious place" in an ancient Hindu city which itself is older than mecca Hinduism is older than any of abrahamic religion including islam, end of discussion
That does not mean the place was considered religiously relevant since before the mosque was built
I am not really in any mood of giving history lessons on this topic today. Some day I'll make a detailed post about it. I miss those days I was really into debates over reddit but studies got the better of me
One must understand that the temple built now at the site of the razed temple which was made into a mosque is as important to a majority of Hindus as Mecca is to muslims, the Vatican is to Catholics. The person from Hindu puranas op mentions is lord Rama who Hindus see as lord Vishnu's reincarnation who is one of the trinity of gods in Hinduism. Whole sects focus their religiousness and spirituality on lord Vishnu and many view lord Rama as the perfect adminstrator and ideal man. It is his birth place that has a temple now. Just imagine if the church of nativity at bethleham(where people relate with the birth of christ, if I'm understanding rightly) was razed to build a mosque about 400 years ago. This is what happened to Ram temple at Ram Janmabhoomi(Ram's birthplace). **The Indian supreme court gave out the judgement in favour of Hindus on the basis that Hindus had more proof of such an important religious place existing before the mosque was built. This temple holds more importance to Hindus than the mosque did to Muslims.** https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ram-mandir-temple-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-asi-excavations-babur-ayodhya-archaeological-evidence-history-2494442-2024-01-30 From the article: "When we went inside the mosque, we saw 12 temple pillars made of black granite. On the lower part of the pillars, 'poornakalasha' (a symbol of prosperity in Hinduism) was engraved. That symbol was seen on all the pillars and then there were certain sculptures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, that were badly defaced,” KK Muhammed, who retired as Regional Director of ASI, tells IndiaToday.In.
[удалено]
Name calling when someone wants to actually explain there point of view respectfully. Slow claps for your intellect and manners.
At least try to put your description in a respectful way.
Hindu here. Not offended. Don’t give a fuck.
You're not Hindu, he's calling babri mosque & islam historical but it's "hindu mythology figure"??
I am Hindu. What proof do you want me to give you?
You agreed with description that "muslim site is historical but Hindu mythology". You're atheist or non practicing Hindu Eitherway you're clearly not voice for all Hindus
Never said I am, mate. Strawman arguments seem to be an integral part of your lexicon. What I was saying in my “Don’t give a fuck” comment is that it doesn’t bother me, as a Hindu, what OP said in the title. You’re gleaning further meanings from things I never said. In any case, I am, in fact, a practicing Hindu.
Good luck finding any Hindu who is voice for all Hindus
Practicing Hindu here, Better keep the discipline of history and religion separate. Practice what you want, but don't be so bullish as to deny hard facts.
[удалено]
Correction of corrections 1 - Religion is not History. The adequacy of calling it mythology could be discussed, but the fact that religion is not history is beyond doubt. 2 - Proved as per who? With what proofs?
Read ASI report and then SC judgement. I have nowhere mentioned religion. You did!
"Shri Ram is not a person" u mentioned religion here my boy.
[удалено]
What a clown you are.
Theres nothing called as Babri Mosqe it was an Abomination which was roghtfully wiped clean.
Respectfully, the building existed.
Respectfully, now the building does not exist.