The bhumi-pujan of Ram Temple at Ayodhya was conducted only yesterday. Curiously, the statements threatening to break the temple in future have already started coming from the Islamists. Initially, the statements were in a veiled manner, but have now an open threat to Ram Temple has come from a Maulana who has threatened to destroy the Ram Mandir in future for establishing Babri Masjid.
Sajid Rashidi, who is a TV panelist in multiple TV News channels on Muslim issues and is also the President of All Indian Imam Association has asserted that in the belief of Muslims, a mosque is always a mosque. He further said that “Mosque wasn’t built after demolishing temple but now maybe temple will be demolished to build mosque.”. This was reported by ANI.
Islam says a mosque will always be a mosque. It can't be broken to build something else. We believe it was, and always will be a mosque. Mosque wasn't built after demolishing temple but now maybe temple will be demolished to build mosque: Sajid Rashidi, Pres, All India Imam Assn pic.twitter.com/DzlbYQ3qdm
— ANI (@ANI) August 6, 2020
Was there a temple below Babri Mosque?
There is a widespread belief among Muslims that there was no temple below Babri Masjid. Many of them have been seen claiming that the Supreme Court said that there was no temple below the Babri Masjid. It is important to address this false narrative as this is one of the reasons that Islamists pose a grave threat to Ram Temple and Janmbhumi site.
It is important to note that the archaeological surveys, led by B B Lal, around Babri in 1970s had already proved that there was a temple below Babri Mosque. On the basis of this, K K Muhammad, who was part of the survey team, wrote an article in Indian Express, which silenced the lies of leftist and Islamist historians of AMU and JNU. B B Lal also wrote a book on the Archaeology of Ramayana sites.
The leftist and Islamist historians came out with a booklet grandly titled “A Historians report to the Nation”. In this 24 page booklet, they claimed that :-
- Ayodhya became associated with Rama’s birth and became a pilgrimage center only in 1850.
- That there was no temple beneath Babri Masjid and no temple was destroyed to build it. Suraj Bhan was the armchair archaeologist who wrote this.
During the court case for Ram Janmbhumi, 61 eminent communist and Islamist historians were called to court as witnesses. Their answers in the court are worth reading and expose their ignorance about the issue:-
- Aligarh historian Shireen Moosavi suggested that, ‘The legend of Ayodhya being the birthplace of Rama is found from the 17th century, prior to which there is no legend about Rama’s birthplace in medieval history.’ However, during cross-examination Moosvi also admitted: ‘It is correct that in Sikh literature there is a tradition that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Ram janmasthan and had bathed in the River Saryu.’ Guru Nanak, it may be added, was a contemporary of the first Mughal emperor. Indeed, readers must remember that Sikhs had many times launched movements to recapture Janmbhoomi site in Ayodhya.
- Suraj Bhan stated: ‘I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in February-March…In my first deposition I may have stated that I had gone to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.’ He admitted having no knowledge of Puranas and said, “We were given only six weeks time for the entire study. Pressure was being repeatedly exerted; so, we submitted our report without going through the record of the excavation work by B B Lal.” It is not clear who gave them such less time and who repeatedly pressured them. I can only presume it was communist party and their Islamist allies.
- Professor D. Mandal, another expert witness for the Waqf Board, admitted he wrote his Ayodhya: Archaeology After Demolition without even visiting Ayodhya and with an eye to influencing the presidential reference to the Supreme Court. Mandal also admitted that, ‘Whatsoever little knowledge I have of Babur is only that Babur was a ruler of the 16th century. Except for this I do not have any knowledge of Babur.’ Justice Agarwal remarked about Mandal that, ‘The statements made by him in cross-examination show the shallowness of his knowledge on the subject.’ Yet, Mandal’s book is still cited as evidence of the spuriousness of the claims by Ram Bhakts.
- Suvira Jaiswal, confessed: ‘I have read nothing about Babri Mosque… Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to the disputed site was on the basis of newspapers or …from the report of historians.’ She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute “after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department.”
- Sushil Shrivastava, a ‘historian’ admitted he had ‘very little knowledge of history’, didn’t know Arabic, Persian, epigraphy or calligraphy and had got translations done by his father-in-law.
- Supriya Verma contested the ‘Hindu’ character of recovered artifacts from the Kushan, Shunga and Gupta periods – something even Bhan and Mandal had admitted to. These, she said, ‘could well have been part of palaces, Buddhist structure, Jain structure, Islamic structure.’ In some recent articles she has continued to claim that there were other mosques below the Babri. Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not even present at the time the actual excavation took place.
ASI report of 2003 proved beyond any doubt that there was a temple below Babri Masjid. The Vishnu Hari inscription of 12th century, that was found in the rubble of demolished Babri Masjid also confirms the presence of a temple at the site.
The ’eminent’ historians mentioned above were severely scolded by the court for misleading but they are back in business. They continue to lie and their arguments are used by the Islamists to further their claims.
Can a mosque be shifted?
The other argument that “a mosque is always a mosque” is also devoid of any facts. This was recently given by Owaisi and also repeated by AIMPLB and scores of other Islamists. Indeed, in Islam mosque is simply a place to congregate and offer worship and the “place of worship” does not have any special property! Anyone can see how lakhs of Muslims offer prayers on road, in trains and myriad public places, which are generally unhygienic.
This is directly opposite to Hindu temples, which are considered “house of God” and not only “house of worship”. Thus Hindu temples are st holy sites and cannot be shifted, but Islamic mosques are just places to offer prayer and can be shifted.
There are hundreds of examples where Saudi Arabia has destroyed the mosques of Prophet and his contemporaries for convenience of Muslims in Mecca and Media. These mosques were 1400 years old and in some of these Muhammad himself had offered prayers. Indeed, the graves of his wives and daughter were also demolished by Saudis and there was an attempt to demolish the grave of Muhammad himself! All this was done according to Islamic law.
In Bharat itself, the mosque over Somnath Temple was shifted a few km away in 1950 to construct Somnath temple. Indeed, prominent Muslim scholar Salman Nadwi has pointed out that under Islam, it is permissible to shift mosques for even secular purposes. He cited the example of Caliph Umar, who had shifted a mosque to make place for a dates market.
Why do the Indian Islamists lie in this matter is a mystery. It includes politicians such as Owaisi and recently, the AIMPLB, which too said that they will wait for appropriate time to demolish temple or convert the temple in a mosque.
This whole episode, as well as reactions by other Islamists to Ram Temple, point to a few things. Firstly, keeping in view the threat to Ram Temple, there is a need to ensure the security of the temple and the site. The is high probability that Islamic terrorists will try to obstruct the construction of the temple. We have seen the vandalism of the site of Krishna Temple in Pakistan recently. There is no difference in Islamists of Bharat and Pakistan Indeed, the ones in Bharat are those supporters of Muslim league who did not move to Pakistan due to strategic reasons.
Secondly, we must now realize the importance of demographic dominance. There is no doubt that if Muslims become majority in Bharat, even in 200 years, all secularism will vanish and a shariah state with Hindus as second class citizens will be established. We are seeing the glimpses of that in Pakistan and even in certain parts of Kerala, Assam, Haryana and West Bengal in Bharat. Hindus are losing the demographic edge through love jihad, conversions and even secularization of Hindu Dharma..
Thirdly, the activities of such Maulanas, Islamists and more importantly leftist historians have to be curbed. It must be remembered that leftists dream of an Bharatiya subcontinent with dozens of countries and they gave the intellectual arguments that paved the way for creation of Pakistan. Both of these can be found in the Gangadhar Adhikari thesis written in 1940s which was adopted by the Communist Party of India! These liars and rabble-rousers should be strictly dealt in interest of national security.
Fourthly, in light of the argument above that mosques can be shifted legally within Islamic doctrine, a process to retake Hindu religious places under illegal Muslim occupation, like Kashi and Mathura, must be started. It may take a few decades, but unless Hindus get all their temples back, true reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims is not possible.
Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.