Thursday, September 30, 2010

hudaibiya?: Ownership of Ayodhya, Hindu sacred space: fine print in judgements

sep 30th, 2010

hudaibiya? this is scary -- see in the mohammedan judge's comments below, where he refers to hudaibiya. 

i smell kitman and taqiya.

in case you didn't know, the treaty of hudaibiya was signed by PBUH (see i give him utmost respect by not even mentioning his name only his honorific) when mohammedans were in a position of weakness. but as soon as they became powerful they tore up the treaty and attacked the other party, and if am not mistaken, massacred them.

also, musharraf mentioned hudaibiya in his speech in urdu the day after 9/11, when the yanks gave him their ultimatum and he had to comply. as can be seen, he never did comply with the agreement, by covertly funding and supporting the taliban. 

sum and substance: hudaibiya is a code word for a tactic whereby you agree to something from a position of weakness with no intention of ever honoring the agreement. 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Kalyanaraman
Subject: Ownership of Ayodhya, Hindu sacred space: fine print in judgements
To:


Centre's duty to implement order: Mayawati

Agencies Posted online: Thu Sep 30 2010, 19:39 hrs
Lucknow : Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati on Thursday said it was the responsibility of the Union government to implement the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya title suit.

Citing a Supreme Court order, she said since the 67 acres of the disputed site was acquired and being managed and maintained by the Centre, the onus of implementing today's court order was with the Union government.

Mayawati said she has already sent a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh saying the Centre should fulfill its responsibility in implementing the high court order without any delay.

She cited the Supreme Court ruling on the plea of a petitioner Ismail Farooqui in 1994, which stated that the acquired land would continue to be under the possession of the central government and it was its duty to implement the pending verdict of the Lucknow bench.

The Chief Minister's remarks come close on the heels of her attack on the Centre for not providing adequate paramilitary forces to the state to deal with any eventuality in the aftermath of the verdict.

The Centre would be held responsible in case of any law and order problem arising out of delay in implementation of the high court order, Mayawati said.

Mayawati accused the Centre of adopting "step motherly" attitude towards the state government ever since she came to power in 2007.

"Against the demand of over 60,000 personnel of central paramilitary forces in view of the high court verdict, the state was provided with only 5,000 jawans," she said.

Attacking Home Minister P Chidambaram for his statement that the state has adequate force, she said 1.90 lakh personnel who have been deployed are the state's own.

The state forces have been deployed judiciously by the UP government to deal with the situation, she said.

Mayawati appealed to the people to maintain peace and communal harmony.

In a warning to communal forces, she said, "No one would be allowed to take law in his hands and stern action would be taken against those attempting to do so."


Published: October 1, 2010 01:41 IST | Updated: October 1, 2010 01:41 IST

Justice Khan justifies partition of land in Ayodhya

J. Venkatesan

If exclusive ownership is claimed but joint ownership is proved, a suit can be decreed for joint ownership, Justice S.U. Khan held in his separate judgment, broadly agreed to by Justice Sudhir Agarwal in a separate judgment in the Ayodhya title suits case.

Quoting a Bombay High Court ruling, he said a suit for exclusive possession could be turned into a suit for partition and possession of such share as might be determined to belong to the plaintiff if it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the whole share but only a part of it.

Justice Khan, quoting an earlier judgment, said that though there was no specific prayer made by the plaintiff seeking partition, this should not come in the way of granting a decree for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff. Denial of such a relief would only lead to another suit. Multiplicity of proceedings should normally be avoided as the same tends to delay justice.

The judge said that in view of the finding rendered by him, "all the three parties (Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara) are entitled to a declaration of joint title and possession to the extent of one-third each and a preliminary decree to that effect is to be passed."

He said: "In the matter of actual partition it is only desirable but not necessary to allot that part of property to a party which was in his exclusive use and occupation. Accordingly, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances it is held that in actual partition, the portion where the idol is presently kept in the makeshift temple will be allotted to the Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted land, including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi. However, to adjust all the three parties at the time of actual partition, slight variation in the share of any party may be made to be compensated by allotting the adjoining land acquired by the Central government."

Justice Khan, in his 285-page judgment, said: "My judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. First, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits. Second, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Third, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourth, the Supreme Court, in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, has held as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims."

Justice Khan said:

"As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].

"When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters.

"However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.

"Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.

A unique position

"Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand."



Published: October 1, 2010 01:11 IST | Updated: October 1, 2010 01:11 IST

Both parties could derive satisfaction: Karunanidhi

Special Correspondent

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, reacting to the Ayodhya verdict, said, "For securing peace in the country, both parties [to the dispute] could derive satisfaction over the judgment."

It was also welcome as there was provision for appeal by those who felt aggrieved over the verdict, he pointed out.

Admirable verdict: Jayalalithaa

The judgment has opened the door to the path of reconciliation, All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam general-secretary Jayalalithaa said.

In a statement, she described the verdict as "admirable," and called upon the parties concerned to fully appreciate the spirit of the judgment and strive to evolve a solution that would make India a shining model of dynamic secularism.

Disappointing, says Swamy

Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy has called upon the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to form a committee and launch a nationwide agitation.

The agitation was meant to demand that the Union government display even-handedness by amending the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act of 1993 to bar the construction of any structure other than those connected with the temple of Lord Ram.

Terming the verdict "deeply disappointing," Dr. Swamy said in a statement that the Supreme Court should be moved for appealing against the judgment.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article804877.ece?css=print


Secular verdict? http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2010/09/secular-verdict-on-ram-janmabhoomi.html


Disputed structure built against the tenets of Islam: Judge


Fri, Oct 1 12:08 AM


Lucknow, Sep 30 (PTI) Holding that the entire disputed site in Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Ram, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma of the Allahabad High Court today said that the "place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity." "The spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless," Justice Sharma said in his judgement on the Ayodhya title suits. He said the structure constructed by Babar was against the tenets of Islam and cannot have the character of a mosque. "The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque," the judge said. He said the disputed structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after its demolition. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that it was a massive Hindu religious structure, he said. The judge said the disputed site "is the birth place of Lord Ram" and that a "place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity." He said the idols of Lord Ram were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949. The judge held that the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP and another main petitioner Nirmohi Akhara were barred by time for claims for title. He said it established that the property in suit is the site of "Janmabhoomi of Ram Chandraji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other objects of worship that existed on the property in suit." It has also been established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janmasthan and visiting it as a sacred placed of pilgrimage "as a right since time immemorial". After the construction of the disputed structure it has been proved that the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22-23.12.1949. "It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard also they were worshipping," he said. Justice Sharma said, "it is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam." PTI VMN VSC


http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20100930/1416/tnl-disputed-structure-built-against-the.html   


6 comments:

M. Patil said...

Ofcourse, Judge S.U.Khan is indulging in Taquiyya. I was not sure if he was an ignorant Muslim or one induling in deception(Taquiyya). This IE report leaves no doubt about his dishonorable intention.

Is it any surprise that just this judge did NOT think that a temple was demolished. It is not clear on what basis he makes the claim that "some material" from ruins was used for Mosque.

There is overwhelming evidence from the chronicles of Islamic sources gleefully describing how temples were demolished and Mosques built on top.

Justice S.U.Khan said:
"2. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque."

Agneya said...

This is why Hindus should not be complacent over this verdict, because even if the whole temple land was given to the Hindus, this would not remove the problem, which is Islam itself.

Agneya said...

This is why the Hindus better not be complacent with a little victory they may have gotten. A Ram Temple built in Ayodhya will not finish Islam. And Islam needs to be destroyed, because Islam wants to destroy others, as this is what Mohammad had "revealed" to him.

He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse. 9:33

He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions. And Allah is enough for a witness. 48:28

He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse. 61:09

Raghu said...

List of "eminent witness" for the Sufi Wakf Board/ BMAC:
(a) - Witness No. 63 - R.S. Sharma
(b) - Witness No. 64 - Suraj Bhan
(c) - Witness No. 65 - D.N. Jha
(d) - Witness No. 66 - Romila Thapar
(e) - Witness No. 70 - Irfan Habib
(f) - Witness No. 72 - B.N. Pandey
(g) - Witness No. 95 - K.M. Shrimali
(h) - Witness No. 99 - Satish Chandra
(i) - Witness No. 102 - Gyanendra Pandey

We could add quite a few to complete the above list; all born Hindus who completely anti-Hindu.

sansk said...

if history is any reliable guide, partition is not the last we hear of this issue. Actually, the partition of land promotes further aggression from the aggressive party. Partition of Hastinapur, India and partition of land in the Middle-East has a common theme. The strong party is the whole world NEVER gives up any land. That this land is partitioned is the basis for further strife.

smriti said...

Another classic and tragic example of the country' judiciary being a platform for minority appeasement.

Referring to Mo in the judgment defeats the very meaning of being a judge.

Do not quite know for how long will this neglect towards the rampant radicalisation that has entrenched itself in the judiciary will continue.