Ayodhya construction ki 3,400 crores collected from normal people anta

[psycopk]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2UdkoILoa9/?igsh=MTJub2h5YmNqajhnNw==

[pizzaaddict]

 

[reality]

3 hours ago, Raven_Rayes said:

the judgement all of 1045 pages is available online

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/36350/36350_2010_1_1502_18205_Judgement_09-Nov-2019.pdf

page 674.. Alexander Cunningham (founder of Archeological Survey of India) who was the first person to conduct a survey of Ayodhya in 1862 concluded that all temples in the region were of recent origin. though he posits that the older temples may have been under the sites on which mosques stand now, there was a old Hanuman Garhi, a fort surrounding a temple that still stands, but that it is not older than Aurangazeb period.

He also states that it was Vikramaditya of Ujjain in the 1st century that revived Ayodhya (also mentioned in the judgement elsewhere) that built a lot of temples at the spots mentioned in Ramayana. but by the time of 7th century Chinese Pilgrim who visits the place records it as a buddhist center with no mention of any of the temples that vikramaditya built existing.

during the time of demolition in 1992, a stone with an inscription of Vishnu-Hari was found among two others, which had sanskrit writings with descriptions of some of vishnu avatars.

in 2003, a radar search on the compound found that there was a structure under the mosque.. it is after this that excavation of the site is ordered by the Lucknow court to find out what that structure is.

even though the temple is dated to be from the 11-12th century from the earlier found inscription (found during the 1992 madness), excavations found several layers of archeological ruins from other eras, including the jain eras dating from 1000 BC. artifacts of mother goddess worshipped by Shungas in 200 BC, Gupta era architecture etc.. ASI is still evaluating the artfiacts it found under the site.

after this excavation buddhists have also claimed the site in Ayodhya because the touchstone pillars found in the site resembles other buddhist viharas.

nowhere does ASI mention a Ram Temple underneath the Masjid.

------

as for the Sikh janamsakhis, this particular one written after the 18th century - they are to be taken as hagiographies written by brahmins about Guru Nanak, because there's no way Guru Nanak would visit a temple since he was against Idol worship and held that pilgirimage to holy spots is totally irrelevant to attain salvation.

 

Lets also look at Allahabad court’s verdict too

 https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/honsaj-vol-4.pdf

see p.783-85 (p.35)

It upheld the vesrses written by Tulsidas (author of Hanuman chalisa) about the atrocities of invaders.

Sri Goswami Tulsidas had already mentioned about it, he has clearly state that invadors demolished Sri Ram Janam bhoomi Mandir and buit Masjid, in his work “Tulsi Doha Shatak”

मंत्र उपनिषद ब्रह्माण्हू बहु पुराण इतिहास।
जवन जराए रोष भरी करी तुलसी परिहास।।

सिखा सूत्र से हीन करी, बल ते हिन्दू लोग।
भमरी भगाए देश ते, तुलसी कठिन कुयोग।।

सम्बत सर वसु बाण नभ, ग्रीष्म ऋतू अनुमानि।
तुलसी अवधहि जड़ जवन, अनरथ किये अनमानि।।

रामजनम महीन मंदिरहिं, तोरी मसीत बनाए।
जवहि बहु हिंदुन हते, तुलसी किन्ही हाय।|

दल्यो मीरबाकी अवध मंदिर राम समाज।
तुलसी ह्रदय हति, त्राहि त्राहि रघुराज।।

रामायण घरी घंट जहन, श्रुति पुराण उपखान।
तुलसी जवन अजान तहँ, कइयों कुरान अजान।।

Translation:

Yavan (barbarians/ mohammedans), ridicule hymns, several Upanishads and treatise like Brahmans, Purnas, Itihas and also Hindu sociiety having faith in them. They exploits the Hindu society in different ways.Forcible attempts are being made by those to expel the followers of Hinduism from their own native place, forcibly divesting them to their shikhas and yagyopaveet and causing them to deviate from their religion. He terms it as as hard and horrowing time.

Describing the barbaric attack of babur, Tulsi says that he indulged in gruesome genocide of the natives of that place, using swords. He says countless atrocities were committed by foolish Yavans in Awadh in and around the summer of samvat 1585, (that is 1528 AD)

Describing the attacks made by Yavans on Shri Ramjanm Bhoomi Mandir, Tulsidas says that after a number of Hindus have been mercilessly killed, Sri Ramjanm Bhoomi Mandir was broken to make it a mosque. Looking at ruthless killing of Hindus Tulsidas says that his heart felt aggrieved.

Tulsidas says that the the Quran as is heard from the holy place of shri Ramjanm Bhumi where discourses from Shrutis, Vedas, Purans, Upnishads etc used to be always heard and which to be constantly reververated with sweet sounds of bells.

Sri Goswami Tulsidas had also described year, and this was submitted as evidence in Prayagraj High court and also one of Ramanandi Acharyas Sri Rambhadracharya did said this in the court as wellin his Pravachans.

So, Goswami has already told about this bloody act..

[reality]

It boils down to historical sequence of events and truth.

Based on the historical facts, fight for Ram janmabhoomi is not new… and has nothing to do with BJs owning it. It dates back much before that

1880s temple construction attempts

In 1853, a group of armed Hindu ascetics from Hanuman Garhi temple occupied the Babri Masjid.[50] Periodic violence erupted in the next two years, and the civil administration had to step in, refusing permission to build a temple or to use it as a place of worship. Gulam Hussain led a group of Sunni Muslims who asserted that the mosque site was home to the Hanuman temple in 1855. After a Hindu-Muslim clash, a boundary wall was constructed to avoid further disputes. It divided the mosque premises into two courtyards; the Muslims offered prayers in the inner courtyard. In 1857, the mahant of the Hanuman Garhi temple erected a raised platform and marked the site of Rama's birth.[51] The Hindus offered their prayers on a raised platform, known as "Ram Chabutara", in the outer courtyard.[50][52]

In 1883, the Hindus launched an effort to construct a temple on the platform. After Muslim protests, the deputy commissioner prohibited any temple construction on 19 January 1885. On 27 January 1885, Raghubar Das, the Hindu mahant (priest) of the Ram Chabutara filed a civil suit before the Faizabad Sub-Judge. In response, the mutawalli (Muslim trustee) of the mosque argued that the entire land belonged to the mosque.[50] On 24 December 1885, the Sub Judge Pandit Hari Kishan Singh dismissed the suit. On 18 March 1886, the District Judge F.E.A. Chamier also dismissed an appeal against the lower court judgment. He agreed that the mosque was built on the land considered sacred by the Hindus, but ordered maintenance of status quo, since it was "too late now to remedy the grievance". A subsequent appeal before the Judicial Commissioner W. Young was also dismissed on 1 November 1886.[52]

On 27 March 1934, a Hindu–Muslim riot occurred in Ayodhya, triggered by cow slaughter in the nearby Shahjahanpur village. The walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged during the riots. These were reconstructed by the British Indian government.

[Raven_Rayes]

4 hours ago, reality said:

Lets also look at Allahabad court’s verdict too

 https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/honsaj-vol-4.pdf

see p.783-85 (p.35)

It upheld the vesrses written by Tulsidas (author of Hanuman chalisa) about the atrocities of invaders.

Sri Goswami Tulsidas had already mentioned about it, he has clearly state that invadors demolished Sri Ram Janam bhoomi Mandir and buit Masjid, in his work “Tulsi Doha Shatak”

मंत्र उपनिषद ब्रह्माण्हू बहु पुराण इतिहास।
जवन जराए रोष भरी करी तुलसी परिहास।।

सिखा सूत्र से हीन करी, बल ते हिन्दू लोग।
भमरी भगाए देश ते, तुलसी कठिन कुयोग।।

सम्बत सर वसु बाण नभ, ग्रीष्म ऋतू अनुमानि।
तुलसी अवधहि जड़ जवन, अनरथ किये अनमानि।।

रामजनम महीन मंदिरहिं, तोरी मसीत बनाए।
जवहि बहु हिंदुन हते, तुलसी किन्ही हाय।|

दल्यो मीरबाकी अवध मंदिर राम समाज।
तुलसी ह्रदय हति, त्राहि त्राहि रघुराज।।

रामायण घरी घंट जहन, श्रुति पुराण उपखान।
तुलसी जवन अजान तहँ, कइयों कुरान अजान।।

Translation:

Yavan (barbarians/ mohammedans), ridicule hymns, several Upanishads and treatise like Brahmans, Purnas, Itihas and also Hindu sociiety having faith in them. They exploits the Hindu society in different ways.Forcible attempts are being made by those to expel the followers of Hinduism from their own native place, forcibly divesting them to their shikhas and yagyopaveet and causing them to deviate from their religion. He terms it as as hard and horrowing time.

Describing the barbaric attack of babur, Tulsi says that he indulged in gruesome genocide of the natives of that place, using swords. He says countless atrocities were committed by foolish Yavans in Awadh in and around the summer of samvat 1585, (that is 1528 AD)

Describing the attacks made by Yavans on Shri Ramjanm Bhoomi Mandir, Tulsidas says that after a number of Hindus have been mercilessly killed, Sri Ramjanm Bhoomi Mandir was broken to make it a mosque. Looking at ruthless killing of Hindus Tulsidas says that his heart felt aggrieved.

Tulsidas says that the the Quran as is heard from the holy place of shri Ramjanm Bhumi where discourses from Shrutis, Vedas, Purans, Upnishads etc used to be always heard and which to be constantly reververated with sweet sounds of bells.

Sri Goswami Tulsidas had also described year, and this was submitted as evidence in Prayagraj High court and also one of Ramanandi Acharyas Sri Rambhadracharya did said this in the court as wellin his Pravachans.

So, Goswami has already told about this bloody act..

It is evidence for the existence of such a mandir, not mentioned outside of Tulsidas and brahminist revision of sikh guru's biographies, that has been hard to find.

local folklore about Ayodhya having 3 temples on top of which Aurangazeb constructed his two mosques, apart from the one Mir Khan built using existing janmasthan temple structures during Babar's time.

there was no proof that the babri masjid was built on top of the temple - as mentioned in the SC judgement, or that a temple was demolished to build it. instead excavations in the site thew up artifiacts from multiple eras including many gods that don't exist today.

based on one Tulsidas poem you can't conclude that the masjid was built on top of a temple, because there is no evidence of such a temple, nor descriptions of the temple from other sources from the time a 12th century temple was built in the place to the time of Babar's conquest. Did no one else visit the temple in the gap of 400yrs? No one singing hymns to greatness of that particular temple in that time?

 

[Raven_Rayes]

5 hours ago, veerigadu said:

Not entirely true. It’s a time dependent situation when it comes to Middle East.
For instance, If you look at pre biblical times, then Jews indeed owned that land. However in modern times, Palestine people are considered natives of that land. 
 

So based on time line the narrative varies. 

In the case of India, it’s an entirely different situation. Hindus owned our land since time immemorial. You can trace it back to any time period. The answer remains same. 

Jews 'owned' that land? lmao.

 

[reality]

6 hours ago, Raven_Rayes said:

It is evidence for the existence of such a mandir, not mentioned outside of Tulsidas and brahminist revision of sikh guru's biographies, that has been hard to find.

local folklore about Ayodhya having 3 temples on top of which Aurangazeb constructed his two mosques, apart from the one Mir Khan built using existing janmasthan temple structures during Babar's time.

there was no proof that the babri masjid was built on top of the temple - as mentioned in the SC judgement, or that a temple was demolished to build it. instead excavations in the site thew up artifiacts from multiple eras including many gods that don't exist today.

based on one Tulsidas poem you can't conclude that the masjid was built on top of a temple, because there is no evidence of such a temple, nor descriptions of the temple from other sources from the time a 12th century temple was built in the place to the time of Babar's conquest. Did no one else visit the temple in the gap of 400yrs? No one singing hymns to greatness of that particular temple in that time?

 

Tulasidas being a prominent figure at that time, his words might have come to light and had a wider reach as big as his Hanuman Chalisa. There might have been many others who spoke about it at that time, but didn’t get registered into main stream.

And the same goes with why no one spoke about visiting or praying at the temple from earlier times. There might have been local stories about it which never got broader visibility and rightly so why would there be such case when everything was OK? It only got escalated when invaders tried to tamper with it.

[bharathicement]

On 1/19/2024 at 8:54 PM, JaiBalayyaaa said:

 

 

Donation ki Collection ki chaala theeda vundhi bro…