Hassane Marecan " RESPONSE " is one of the Powerful Weapon to occupy a place in others " HEART"
So, always give response to those who care for you...!!!!!
Friday, October 1, 2010
Shreya Ghoshal Slide Show Video
Hassane Marecan " RESPONSE " is one of the Powerful Weapon to occupy a place in others " HEART"
Ayodhya Verdict: A lesson for the coming generation
By Soroor Ahmed, TwoCircles.net,
Though the September 30 Allahabad High Court verdict is too legal to be analysed in simple terms its one important fall-out is that it provided an opportunity to make the young generation aware of what actually happened in the tumultuous 5-6 years of the Ram Janambhoomi movement.
Even in this age of information explosion a large number of Hindu and Muslim youths under the age of 20 were, till a month back, totally unaware of what actually happened on, before and after December 6, 1992 -- the day the structure was brought down by a mob of thousands led by BJP leaders Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati. That was not enough. The rampaging mob then went on killing and maiming Muslims and destroying their property. At places innocent passengers were thrown from the running trains or killed on roads while on way to home.
L.K. Advani ON the Somnath-Ayodhya rath yatra of 1991 [Photo: The Hindu]
What happened from Bhagalpur in October 1989 to Surat in December 1992 (where Muslim women were stripped naked and paraded during the riots) to Mumbai in December1992-January 1993 was virtually blacked out by a large section of the media in the later years. The Lucknow Special Court ruling prompted the media to recall some of those facts before the people.
Till a few weeks back the upcoming generation was aware of what happened on March 12, 1993 in Mumbai, where serial blasts killed around 250 innocent people. But they were hardly aware of what actually happened in months and years preceding that incident. Now they have become aware of both the heinous crimes against humanity––not just one.
The verdict, in no way, justified the demolition when the case relating to it was sub-judice and when one of the party was ready to accept the court judgement from the very beginning.
Though Muslims were mostly the victims of the prolong movement, the tragedy is that the older generation of the community failed to pass on to the Gneration-Next what actually transpired, who conspired, who whipped up mass hysteria and provocked the general people and who played the heroic role in safeguarding the secular character of the country.
Uma Bharti in jubilant mood after the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992 [Photo: OutlookIndia]
The only exception among the Left is the CPI ML (Liberation), whose cadres came out strongly in their fight against the saffron brigade in a few places in North India.
As the verdict provided an opportunity to debate and discuss in media the whole chain of events it also gave an idea to the coming generation about the gravity of the situation. The fear, panic and uncertainity which gripped the country in the last few days before the September 30 judgement reminded the older generation of those heydays of the movement when the whole country was brought to a standstill. Parents, especially Muslims, were not sending their sons and daughters to schools and colleges, people would avoid journey and remain confined to home after sunset in many parts of the country.
Journey of terror: death and destruction following Advani's rath yatra in 1990. [The Hindu]
Had the parties been more sensible and mature the solution could have been reached without shedding blood. The whole movement certainly polarized the country no end and gave birth to hotheads among the Muslims too. More than the verdict, the unwinding of the whole chain of events––obviously the by-product of the judgement––may go a long way to change the thinking of both the communities.
Unlike till early 1990s the passion has subsided and people have become more rational. Time has proved a great healer. Even the Sangh Parivar knows that they cannot whip up the same fervour and sentiment on the same issue once again in less than two decades. This is a lesson for the future generation.
Though the September 30 Allahabad High Court verdict is too legal to be analysed in simple terms its one important fall-out is that it provided an opportunity to make the young generation aware of what actually happened in the tumultuous 5-6 years of the Ram Janambhoomi movement.
Even in this age of information explosion a large number of Hindu and Muslim youths under the age of 20 were, till a month back, totally unaware of what actually happened on, before and after December 6, 1992 -- the day the structure was brought down by a mob of thousands led by BJP leaders Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati. That was not enough. The rampaging mob then went on killing and maiming Muslims and destroying their property. At places innocent passengers were thrown from the running trains or killed on roads while on way to home.
L.K. Advani ON the Somnath-Ayodhya rath yatra of 1991 [Photo: The Hindu]
What happened from Bhagalpur in October 1989 to Surat in December 1992 (where Muslim women were stripped naked and paraded during the riots) to Mumbai in December1992-January 1993 was virtually blacked out by a large section of the media in the later years. The Lucknow Special Court ruling prompted the media to recall some of those facts before the people.
Till a few weeks back the upcoming generation was aware of what happened on March 12, 1993 in Mumbai, where serial blasts killed around 250 innocent people. But they were hardly aware of what actually happened in months and years preceding that incident. Now they have become aware of both the heinous crimes against humanity––not just one.
The verdict, in no way, justified the demolition when the case relating to it was sub-judice and when one of the party was ready to accept the court judgement from the very beginning.
Though Muslims were mostly the victims of the prolong movement, the tragedy is that the older generation of the community failed to pass on to the Gneration-Next what actually transpired, who conspired, who whipped up mass hysteria and provocked the general people and who played the heroic role in safeguarding the secular character of the country.
Uma Bharti in jubilant mood after the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992 [Photo: OutlookIndia]
The only exception among the Left is the CPI ML (Liberation), whose cadres came out strongly in their fight against the saffron brigade in a few places in North India.
As the verdict provided an opportunity to debate and discuss in media the whole chain of events it also gave an idea to the coming generation about the gravity of the situation. The fear, panic and uncertainity which gripped the country in the last few days before the September 30 judgement reminded the older generation of those heydays of the movement when the whole country was brought to a standstill. Parents, especially Muslims, were not sending their sons and daughters to schools and colleges, people would avoid journey and remain confined to home after sunset in many parts of the country.
Journey of terror: death and destruction following Advani's rath yatra in 1990. [The Hindu]
Had the parties been more sensible and mature the solution could have been reached without shedding blood. The whole movement certainly polarized the country no end and gave birth to hotheads among the Muslims too. More than the verdict, the unwinding of the whole chain of events––obviously the by-product of the judgement––may go a long way to change the thinking of both the communities.
Unlike till early 1990s the passion has subsided and people have become more rational. Time has proved a great healer. Even the Sangh Parivar knows that they cannot whip up the same fervour and sentiment on the same issue once again in less than two decades. This is a lesson for the future generation.
Source : http://twocircles.netAyodhya Verdict: A lesson for the coming generation
Ayodhya Judgment-Gist
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
3. 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.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/ believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.
Order:-Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi
Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by JUSTICE. DHARAM VEER SHARMA
ISSUES FOR BRIEFING
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?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.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of thedisputed structure it is proved 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 (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
Thanks regards:
posted by: jeeva giridharan
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
3. 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.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/ believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.
Order:-Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi
Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by JUSTICE. DHARAM VEER SHARMA
ISSUES FOR BRIEFING
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?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.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of thedisputed structure it is proved 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 (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
Thanks regards:
posted by: jeeva giridharan
Sufi Comics: Al-hamdu-lillah Sufi Comics: Al-hamdu-lillah
Sufi Comics: Al-hamdu-lillah
Sufi Comics: Al-hamdu-lillah
Similar Posts:
- Sufi Comics: Positive Thinking
- Sufi Comics: Teaching Beautifully
- Sufi Comics: Good Manners melt a Hard Heart
- Sufi Comics: Follow Principles
- Sufi Comics: The Power of Prayers
Source : http://www.vakil.orgSufi Comics: Al-hamdu-lillah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
