Dude, a guy in my building is busting songs projecting hate towards Muslims. He can be booked for hate, i guess. Should I kick his speaker or should i kick him?
@_lunawinters explain that guy that decision was not on based of sentiments or ram birth . It was on the fact that ASI found some proof of temple underneath. It's a win for Muslims too as they get 5acres now somewhere for mosque as former only 2 acre.
@Warhorse @_lunawinters
Its certainly not a win for muslim community. How?
ASI found proof of 'some' structure from 12th century. It could've been a buddhist temple too. ASI finding were also disputed and findings were not constant.
The mosque built in 15th century stayed with muslims until it was demolished in 1992 by terrorists.
If hindu community went to SC and got the land purely by judiciary means, then its fine. But they took it by force. The same SC acknowledged that it was an act of desecration.
1, ASI found proof for some structure
2, Babri Mosque stood for 400 years
Number 2- is a fact. Written in history.
Number 1- is not a fact. A structure alone doesn't give them right to assume its a temple.
RSS-VHP hooligans in lakhs went to a place of worship and demolished it , & 3 decades later, they get to keep it?
A democracy must be backed by facts. Not some fictional character like Ram. India is dictated by sentiments of religion. That's how I see this verdict.
@Karthikdeva @_lunawinters yes I agree and I am saying that judgement is given on ASI findings and courtyard structural construction also suggest that Hindus were worshipping earlier.
These above two points made Ranjan to say that clearly mosque was build not peacefully. That's why the rightful owner are not Sunni board. Also I believe there was no temple from time of ram.
But there was a temple from Vikramaditya era .
