 |
| Conspiracy To Divide Muslims Over Babri Masjid Case |
The rulers of the Delhi Sultanate and their successors, the Mughals, were great patrons of art and architecture and constructed many fine tombs, mosques and madrasas. These have a distinctive style which bears influences of "later Tughlaq" architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal, Kashmir and Gujarat. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur Sultanate. When viewed from the west side, it resembled the Atala Masjid in Jaunpur.
Construction
The Babri Masjid was a mosque in Ayodhya, India. Located in Faizabad district, it was one of the largest mosques in the Uttar Pradesh state. According to the mosque's inscriptions, it was built in 1528–29 CE (935 AH) by Mir Baqi, on orders of the Mughal emperor Babur (after whom it is named). The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("Rama's fort". According to hearsay, Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site. Limited historical evidence exists to support this theory and the existence of the temple itself is a matter of controversy. A report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that a temple existed at the site. The political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history of the site and whether a previous temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque, is known as the Ayodhya dispute. Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. On 6 December 1992, the demolition of the Babri Masjid by Hindu nationalist groups triggered riots all over India, leading to around 2,000 deaths.
The date of construction of the Babri Masjid is uncertain. The inscriptions on the Babri Masjid premises found in the 20th century state that the mosque was built in 935 AH (1528–29 CE) by Mir Baqi in accordance with the wishes of Babur. However, these inscriptions appear to be of a more recent vintage. There are no records of the mosque from this period. The Baburnama (Chronicles of Babur) does not mention either the mosque or the destruction of a temple.The Ramcharit Manas of Tulsidas (AD 1574) and Ain-i Akbari of Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak (AD 1598) made no mention of a mosque either.William Finch, the English traveller who visited Ayodhya around 1611, wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world." He found pandas (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, recording the names of pilgrims, but there was no mention of a mosque.Thomas Herbert described in 1634 the "pretty old castle of Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name" which he described as an antique monument that was "especially memorable". He also recorded the fact of Brahmins recording the names of pilgrims. The earliest record of a mosque at the site traditionally believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Rama comes from Jai Singh II (or "Sawai Jai Singh") – a Rajput noble in the Mughal court who purchased land and established a Jaisinghpura in the area surrounding the mosque in 1717 (as he had also done in several other Hindu religious places). The documents of Jai Singh preserved in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the City Palace Museum of Jaipur, include a sketch map of the Babri Masjid site. The map shows an open court yard and a built structure with three temple spires (sikharas) resembling today's Babri Masjid with three domes. The courtyard is labelled janmasthan and shows a Ram chabutra. The central bay of the built structure is labelled chhathi, which also denotes birthplace.[16] The European Jesuit missionary Joseph Tiefenthaler, who lived and worked in India for 38 years (1743–1785) and wrote numerous works about India, visited Ayodhya in 1767. Johann Bernoulli translated his work Descriptio Indiae (in Latin) into French, published in 1788. According to this account, Aurangzeb (r. 1658–1707) had demolished the Ramkot fortress, including the house that was considered as the birthplace of Rama by Hindus. A mosque with three domes was constructed in its place. However, he also noted, "others say that it was constructed by 'Babor' [Babur]". The Hindus continued to offer prayers at a mud platform that marked the birthplace of Rama. Tiefenthaler was well-versed in Persian and Sanskrit, having written a Sankrit–Persian dictionary, and other works in Persian. Evidently he did not find an inscription on the walls of the mosque stating that it was constructed under Babur's orders. He "emphatically attributed it to Aurangzeb, and Babur's name is carried by a few persons", states writer Kishore Kunal.
Inscriptions
Francis Buchanan-Hamilton (Buchanan) did a survey of the Gorakhpur Division in 1813–14 on behalf of the British East India Company. His report was never published but partly reused by Montgomery Martin later. Kishore Kunal examined the original report in the British Library archives. It states that the Hindus generally attributed destruction "to the furious zeal of Aurangzabe". However it said that the mosque at Ayodhya was ascertained to have been built by Babur by "an inscription on its walls". The said inscription in Persian was said to have been copied by a scribe and translated by a Maulvi friend of Buchanan. The translation however contained five pieces of text, including two inscriptions. The first inscription said that the mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi in the year 935 AH or 923 AH. The second inscription narrated the genealogy of Aurangzeb.
In addition to the two inscriptions and their monograms (turghas), a fable concerning a dervish called Musha Ashiqan was also included. The translator doubted that the fable was part of the inscription but recorded that the scribe "positively says that the inscription was executed at the erection of this building". The translator also had a difficulty with the anagram for the date, because one of the words was missing, which would have resulted in a date of 923 AH rather than 935 AH. These incongruities and mismatches made no impression on Buchanan, who maintained that the mosque was built by Babur. In 1838, British surveyor Montgomery Martin wrote that the pillars in the mosque were taken from a Hindu temple. A section of historians, such as R. S. Sharma, deny this, and state that such claims of temple demolition sprang up only after the 18th century. In 1877, Syed Mohammad Asghar the Mutawalli (guardian) of the "Masjid Baburi at Janmasthan" filed a petition with the Commissioner of Faizabad asking him to restrain the Hindus that raised a chabutara on the spot regarded as the birthplace of Rama. In the petition,
he stated that Babur had inscribed one word "Allah" above the door. The District Judge and the Sub-Judge visited the mosque in the presence of all parties and their lawyers and confirmed this fact. No other inscriptions were recorded. In 1889, archaeologist Anton Führer visited the mosque and found three inscriptions. One was a Quranic verse. The inscription XLI was Persian poetry in the metre Ramal, which stated that the mosque was erected by a noble 'Mir Khan' of Babur.[e] The inscription XLII was also Persian poetry in metre Ramal, and said that the mosque was founded in year 930 AH by a grandee of Babur, who was (comparable to) "another King of Turkey and China". The year 930 AH corresponds 1523 AD, three years before Babur's conquest of Hindustan. Despite the apparent contradiction, Führer published the date of "A. H. 930 during the reign of Babar", in his book of 1891. Writer Kishore Kunal states that all the inscriptions claimed were fake. They were affixed almost 285 years after the supposed construction of the mosque in 1528 AD, and repeatedly replaced.[19] His own assessment is that the mosque was built around 1660 AD by governor Fedai Khan of Aurangzeb, who demolished many temples in Ayodhya.
Lal Das, who wrote Awadh-Vilasa in 1672 describes the janmasthan (Rama's birthplace) accurately but does not mention a temple at the site. These developments were apparently known to local Muslims. In mid-nineteenth century, the Muslim activist Mirza Jan quoted from a book Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, which was said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor Bahadur Shah I (and granddaughter of Aurangzeb) in the early 18th century. The text mentions mosques having been constructed after demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh etc." Hindus are said to have called these demolished temples in Awadh "Sita Rasoi" (Sita's kitchen) and "Hanuman's abode." While there was no mention of Babur in this account, the Ayodhya mosque had been juxtaposed with those built by Aurangzeb at Mathura and Banaras.
Maulana Kalbe Sadiq
Maulana Kalbe Sadiq has triggered yet another controversy with his statement which is in direct conflict with the official stand taken by All India Muslim Personal law Board in Babri Masjid case. The affidavit filed by UP Shia Waqf Board Chairman Waseem Rizvi is unlawful as the Shia waqf board has not been a party in this case, said Adv. Syed Ejaz Abbas, Central Waqf Council member, incharge of UP – Jharkhand. He also alleged that Waseem Rizvi, is facing 11 criminal cases by CBI for misappropriation of Shia Waqf properties worth thousands of crores. So,
he is diverting public attention and trying to dilute CBI inquiry into the alleged misappropriation of Waqf properties in UP, said Adv. Syed Ejaz Abbas. Maulana Kalbe Sadiq gave his controversial statement suggesting Muslims to withdraw from the title claim over the plot of Babri Masjid in the presence of Baba Ram Dev and central BJP minister Harsh Vardhan, so he became suspicious among the Muslim masses. Many Muslims question,
why he did not put his new ideas about Babri Masjid case before Muslim Personal Law Board which he is representing as Vice President for the last many decades. Why he did not consult with other office bearers of Board before going public? Why after toeing the official line of the Board, Maulana suddenly changed his heart and chose company of Baba Ramdev and BJP minister Goel to make his new stand public? Such questions need immediate answers.
Maulana Kalbe Sadiq
Maulana Kalbe Sadiq has triggered yet another controversy with his statement which is in direct conflict with the official stand taken by All India Muslim Personal law Board in Babri Masjid case. The affidavit filed by UP Shia Waqf Board Chairman Waseem Rizvi is unlawful as the Shia waqf board has not been a party in this case, said Adv. Syed Ejaz Abbas, Central Waqf Council member, incharge of UP – Jharkhand. He also alleged that Waseem Rizvi, is facing 11 criminal cases by CBI for misappropriation of Shia Waqf properties worth thousands of crores. So,
he is diverting public attention and trying to dilute CBI inquiry into the alleged misappropriation of Waqf properties in UP, said Adv. Syed Ejaz Abbas. Maulana Kalbe Sadiq gave his controversial statement suggesting Muslims to withdraw from the title claim over the plot of Babri Masjid in the presence of Baba Ram Dev and central BJP minister Harsh Vardhan, so he became suspicious among the Muslim masses. Many Muslims question,
why he did not put his new ideas about Babri Masjid case before Muslim Personal Law Board which he is representing as Vice President for the last many decades. Why he did not consult with other office bearers of Board before going public? Why after toeing the official line of the Board, Maulana suddenly changed his heart and chose company of Baba Ramdev and BJP minister Goel to make his new stand public? Such questions need immediate answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment