I came across some interesting facts about the Ayodhya case. A court ruling in 1951 confirmed that the no Muslims had offered prayers since 1936 in the structure that was called "Babri Masjid". Which means that for last 83 years Muslims have not used that place for prayers or any other religious activity. The same ruling confirmed that during that period (1936-51) Hindus have been praying at that place.
In 1949, when idols of Bhagwan Ram were discovered at the place, the gates to the structure were locked and Hindus were forbidden from entering the place. But Hindus continued to offer prayers to Bhagwan Ram from outside the gates. On the other hand Muslim had already foresaken the place, and it had no religious significance to them. No Muslim prayers were offered there.
So the so-called "Babri Masjid" wasn't a masjid like Jama Masjid of Delhi or your neighbourhood Masjid, where Muslims offer prayers every week. It was a place abondoned by Muslims, while being continually used by Hindus for prayers. Archeological evidence has by now conclusively proved that a grand Hindu temple, absolutely certainly, existed at that place. Given these facts, the name "masjid" is really a misnomer for that place.
The more you read about the Ayodhya case, the more you realize that the facts of the case are strongly in favour of Hindus. The Sunni Waqf Board has a very weak case that it is trying to defend. If the decision in Ayodhya case is based purely on the merits of the case then the result would go entirely in favour of Hindus.
In 1949, when idols of Bhagwan Ram were discovered at the place, the gates to the structure were locked and Hindus were forbidden from entering the place. But Hindus continued to offer prayers to Bhagwan Ram from outside the gates. On the other hand Muslim had already foresaken the place, and it had no religious significance to them. No Muslim prayers were offered there.
So the so-called "Babri Masjid" wasn't a masjid like Jama Masjid of Delhi or your neighbourhood Masjid, where Muslims offer prayers every week. It was a place abondoned by Muslims, while being continually used by Hindus for prayers. Archeological evidence has by now conclusively proved that a grand Hindu temple, absolutely certainly, existed at that place. Given these facts, the name "masjid" is really a misnomer for that place.
The more you read about the Ayodhya case, the more you realize that the facts of the case are strongly in favour of Hindus. The Sunni Waqf Board has a very weak case that it is trying to defend. If the decision in Ayodhya case is based purely on the merits of the case then the result would go entirely in favour of Hindus.
Posts
