Talk:Conversion of mosques into non-Islamic places of worship

Demolition

Snigdhanchandran, please demonstrate how your sources show that the findings of the ASI suggest the demolition of a Hindu temple, or self-revert the content you just added. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, The excavations done by ASI clearly prove the existence of Hindu structure, as stated in the links and detailed in the book 'The Battle for Rama (Case of the Temple at Ayodhya)' by Meenakshi Jain. In fact, those who claim to the contrary have been changing their stances every time more and more evidence has come up in favor of the Hindu structure. To state that it was not a Hindu structure because ASI did not claim so is completely misleading. It was not in the scope of ASI to answer the question if it was a Hindu structure or not. ASI was asked if there was a pre-existing structure, which it answered in the affirmative. However, the excavations and the items found in the excavations clearly prove that it was indeed a Hindu structure and not merely just any structure. All all this information is available in the references cited.SnigdhanchandranTalk

Snigdhanchandran, the content you added suggested not only that a structure existed, but that it was demolished by the Mughals. Please demonstrate how the demolition is supported by the sources. As things stand, your addition violates our policy on verifiability. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, The book 'The Battle for Rama (Case of the Temple at Ayodhya)' lays threadbare all what has happened and the requisite links suffice. There is absolutely no such violation of the aforementioned policy. The citations are sufficient to demonstrate the case.SnigdhanchandranTalk

Snigdhanchandran Per WP:BURDEN, please substantiate your assertion with page numbers and quotes from the source, or expect that content to be removed once again. Please also demonstrate that the source you are using represents the consensus among high-quality sources on the topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Source: The Battle for Rama, Case of the Temple at Ayodhya, by Meenakshi Jain.

Below is the substantiation of the assertions with excerpts and page numbers, as demanded by you, though the page numbers were already mentioned in the references, thereby rendering the demand somewhat unreasonable. But I'll take that in my stride.

Destruction of Ram Janmasthan by Mughals/Babur:

Page 2, para 4,5: Several works in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu composed in the nineteenth century also explicitly referred to the demolition of the temple and its replacement by Babri Masjid (Narain 1993: 16-37). One such work was the Jaunah al-Mashriq al-Islami wa Malta al-Nur al-Mashriq, re-titled Al-Hind-u fi al- 'Ahd al-Islami, by Maulana Hakim Sayyid Abd al-Hayy. It was translated into Urdu by Maulana Shams Tabriz Khan, under the title Hindustan Islami Ahd mein. In an introduction, the author's son, Maulana Abu al-Hassan 'Ali Nadawi alias Ali Mian stated,

And among them is the great mosque that was built by the Timurid king Babar in the sacred city of Ajodhya. It is believed that Rama Chandra considered to be the manifestation of God, was born here. There is a long story about his wife Sita. There was a big temple for them in this city. At a certain place Sita used to sit and cook food for her consort. Well, the said king Babar demolished it and built a mosque at that very place with chiseled stone in 923 AH (Narain 1993: 16-17)

Page 3, para 1,2: Besides medieval works in Persian and Urdu, there was the notable account of the Austrian Jesuit, Joseph Tieffenthaler (1710-1785), who travelled through Awadh between 1766 and 1771. He wrote,

...here was a house where Beschan (Vishnu) was born in the form of Ram. ... Subsequently Aurengzebe or Babor, according to others, got this place razed in order to deny the noble people, the opportunity of practicing their superstitions ... (pages 3503-09 para 3514).

Page 3, para 4,5: Anton Fuhrer (1853-1930), a German Indologist who served as Curator of the Lucknow Provincial Museum and was also Archaeological Surveyor of the North Western Provinces, recorded,

The old temple of Ramachandra at Janmasthanam must have been a very fine one, for many of its columns have been used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar's masjid. These are of strong, close grained, dark-coloured or black stone, called by the natives kasauti, 'touch-stone slate,' and carved with different devices. They are from seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and capital, and round or octagonal intermediately (Fuhrer 1889: 68).

Page 3, para 6 & Page 4, para 1,2,3: The Annual Report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, submitted by Maulvi Shuaib in 1906, recorded three inscriptions at Babri Masjid. Appendix D of the Report listed the inscriptions copied at that time in serial numbers 10 to 12. Inscription No. 10 was the stone slab on the outside of the central arch of the Masjid. It was in Persian named the ruler as Babur, and the date of construction as AH 935, i.e. AD 1528. In the last column under Remarks it stated that the inscription,

Records the erection of the mosque which was built on the same spot where the old temple of Janamasthanam of Ram Chandra was (Kunal 2016: 171-73).

This entry raises several intriguing questions — when was the inscription put up and when was it removed? Is there any record of an one else having seen it? Equally important, why was Maulvi Shuaib's Annual Report of the Office of the Archeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, not made public for over a century?

Page 4, para 4,5: That apart, more recently Hans Bakker, whose authoritative work on Ayodhya was published in 1986 well before the controversy erupted, wrote,

The oldest pieces of archaeological evidence are the black columns which remain from the old (Visnu) temple that was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended to earth (Janma-Bhumi). This temple was destroyed by the first Mogul prince Babur in AH 1528 and replaced by a mosque which still exists. The following specimens of these pillars are known to exist: fourteen pillars were utilized by the builder Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque and are still partly visible within it; two pillars were placed besides the grave of the Muslim saint Fazl Abbas alias Musa Ashikhin, who, according to oral tradition, incited Babur to demolish the Hindu temple. The grave and these two pillars (driven upside-down into the ground) are still shown in Ayodhya, a little south of the Kubertila... (Bakker 1986: 44).

Page 14, para 4: The last mosque of Babur's time was built at Ayodhya. Like Sambhal, Ayodhya was a site of immense significance for Hindus as the sacred birthplace of Lord Rama. The incorporation of Hindu architectural members prominently displayed in the mosque was perhaps intended by Mir Baqi as a statement of Muslim authority (Asher 1992: 29-30).

Page 23, para 2,3,4: Joseph Tieffenthaler, who stayed in India from 1743 till his death some four decades later, toured Awadh between 1766 and 1771. He was the first to refer to the destruction of a temple at Rama's birthplace by a Mughal ruler. He saw Hindus worshipping a religious structure in the form of a vedi (cradle) in the premises, but said nothing about Muslims offering namaaz. He also noted the large gatherings of Hindus on the occasion of Rama Navami (Rama's birthday). He wrote,

Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor.' Fourteen black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque...

On the left is seen a square box raised 5 inches above the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4 ells. The Hindus call it Bedi i.e. 'the cradle.' The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan was born in the form of Ram.... Subsequently Aurengzebe or Babor, according to others, got this place razed in order to deny the noble people, the opportunity of practicing their superstitions.

Page 29, para 2: The British official, Robert Montgomery Martin, entrusted in 1838, with the task of compiling historical and topographical data on Eastern India (collected earlier by Francis Buchanan), reported the legend of King Vikramaditya who allegedly erected 360 temples at places sanctified by the deeds of Rama, Sita, Lakshmana, and Hanuman. He referred to the destruction of the temple by Babur or Aurangzeb. "The bigot, by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples." Martin mentioned the black stone pillars in the mosque, evidently taken from a Hindu building from the traces of images observable on some of their bases, though these had been cut off "to satisfy the conscience of the bigot" (Martin II 1838: 333-36).

Page 29, para 3,4: Edward Thornton (1799-1875), head of the Statistical Department of East India House and pioneer in the systematic collection and publication of Indian statistics, in his Gazetteer of 1858 wrote that the mosque was embellished with fourteen columns,

said to have been taken from the ruins of the Hindoo fanes...A quadrangular coffer of stone, white washed, five ells long, four broad, and protruding five or six inches above ground, is pointed out as the cradle in which Rama was born as the seventh avatar of Vishnu; and is accordingly abundantly honoured by the pilgrimages and devotions of the Hindoos (Thornton 1858: 739-40).

Page 30, para 1: Surgeon General Edward Balfour (1813-1889), Scottish surgeon, Orientalist, and environmentalist, in the Encyclopedia of Indian and of Eastern and Southern Asia stated that Ayodhya had "three mosques on the sites of three Hindu shrines: the Janmasthan on the site where Rama was born ..." (Balfour 1858: 56).

Page 30, para 2,3,4,5: Patrick Carnegy, the first British Commissioner and Settlement Officer of Faizabad wrote,

It is locally affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there were three important Hindu shrines ... at Ayodhya. These were the Janmasthan, the Sargadwar Mandir and the Treta-ka-Thakur. On the first of these Babar built the mosque which still bears his name... On the second, Aurangzeb did the same ... and on the third that sovereign, or his predecessor, built a mosque, according to the well-known Mahomedan principle of enforcing their religion on all whom they conquered (Carnegy 1870: 20-21).

Camegy stated that the Janmasthan marked the place where Rama was born, the Sargadwar the gate through which he passed into heaven and the Treta-ka-Thakur the site where he performed a great sacrifice. W.C.Benett, who prepared the Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh (1877-78), noted,

If Ajodhya was then little other than a wilderness, it must at least have possessed a fine temple in the Janamasthan; for many of its columns are still in existence and in good preservation, having been used by the Musalmans in the construction of the Babari Mosque. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-colored or black stone, called by the natives kasauti and carved with different devices (Benett 1877-78: 6-7).

Page 32, para 1,2: H.R. Nevill (ICS) also recorded that at the lime of the Muslim conquest there were three important Hindu shrines at Ayodhya.

each was successively made the object of attention of different musalman rulers.

He elaborated,

The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Ram. In AH 1528 Babur came to Ajodhya and halted there for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely employed, and many of the columns are in good preservation; they are of close-grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti, and carved with various devices ... This desecration of the most sacred spot in the city caused great bitterness between Hindus and Musalmans (Nevill 1905: 179-80).

Miscellaneous:

Page 3, para 3: After the British takeover of Awadh, all official records and district gazetteers of the colonial State were also unanimous that Babri Masjid occupied the site of the temple. Every British report on Ayodhya noted the black stone pillars in the mosque, all traces of images on their bases having been cut off "to satisfy the conscience of the bigot" (Martin II 1976: 333-36).

Page 30, para 1: William Finch, who arrived eighty years after Babur, confirmed an active Hindu presence at the site. He made no mention of Muslims offering namaaz, raising the question whether the Masjid had been abandoned soon after its construction.

The 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute also made a reference to the writings of three of the travelers mentioned in the excerpts above, i.e; William Finch, Robert Montgomery Martin and Joseph Tieffenthaler were also mentioned in .

With such preponderance of evidence, how what possible justification could there be not to retain it in the wiki page? --Snigdhanchandran (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, these sources don't amount to much. Sources from the pre-Independence era are not considered reliable. Jain says nothing about demolition in her own voice. Asher is saying nothing about demolition either. Which leaves only Bakker, in your entire wall of text, as a source of any value potentially supporting your claim; and in contrast, there's any number of more recent scholarly sources which cover this information and omit any mention of demolition; as such, your narrative constitutes undue weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References