In 1528, Mir Baki Isfahani, the general of Zahiruddin Babar, the founder of the Mughal Sultanate, started the construction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
On December 6, 1992, in just 4 hours and 45 minutes, the 485-year-old Islamic monument was smashed to pieces.
The biggest reason for the demolition of Babri Masjid was that Shri Ram of Hindus was born here. Later, King Babur demolished the temple and built a mosque there. But what history says.
Was Babri Masjid the birthplace of Lord Rama? The World Hindu Council could not provide any evidence that there was a Ram temple on the site of the Babri Masjid. That temple has been demolished and a mosque has been built.
The mosque has a clear Persian inscription stating that it was built in 1526-29 AD and the name and inscription of the builder are inscribed. Even Babur's daughter Gulband Begum has clearly described the construction of this mosque in "Humayun Nama". But he also did not mention that “the Babri Masjid temple was demolished and rebuilt. If the temple had been demolished and a mosque had been built, at least for the purpose of pride, Gulband Begum would have written about it.
Tulsidas recorded the Ramayana in 1565-6, about 50 years after the construction of the Babri Mosque. But sadly, even though he was a Hindu, he did not write that the temple was demolished and a mosque was built. At least when he was writing the Ramayana he used to say that the Babri Masjid was the birthplace of Rama, and there was a temple there.
No Ayodhya-centric history books of the 16th and 17th centuries state that there was a Ram temple on the site of the Babri Masjid.
Abul Fazl Rah completed the writing of his history book "Aine Akbar" in 1598 AD. In his book, he mentions Ayodhya as one of the important tourist destinations of India and says that it is 40 crores to the east and 20 crores to the north. That is to say, there was no definite idea of the birthplace of Rama at that time. Because he mentioned the graves of two prophets in that place but did not point to the birthplace of Rama for once ?!
William Foster describes Ayodhya in "Early Travels in India" when he visited it in 1808. He mentions in his description the river where Hindus bathe and a mysterious cave two kilometers away from that river. The bones of Lord Rama are buried here in the cave he commented on. Surprisingly, he did not comment on Rama's birthplace.
Sujan Rai Bhandari finished writing her book "Kholasatut Tarikh" in 1995-96. In his book, he mentions Hindu holy places in the geographical description of the Indian subcontinent. He did not forget to write that Aurangzeb demolished a temple of Keshoraj and built a mosque. But when he presented the geographical description of Ayodhya - someone not only built a mosque in the birthplace of Lord Rama but also demolished the temple - did he forget to write such a big event?
Sir Jadunath Sarkar in his book "India of Aurangzeb" said that Ayodhya is an important place for worship. Ramchandra ji was born here. In other words, it is understood that Ram's birthplace is Ayodhya but no idea is found about the Babri Mosque which was built as his birthplace. Rather he could not mention any specific place of his birth.
There is no doubt that the Babri Mosque was built during the reign of King Zahiruddin Babar. Due to the generosity of Emperor Babar, many great Hindus considered him a secular king. The current pro-Hindu famous motivational speakers consider Vivek Bindra and Babar to be secular and anti-Hindu-Muslim. There is even a book called "Secular Empire Dad" about his father's biography. Besides, after seeing Babar's sympathetic view of Hindu temples and his love for Hindus as emperor in the book "Babar Nama" "India Divided", it is impossible to say that he would allow the demolition of the temple and the construction of a mosque. Or it is impossible for anyone in his era to demolish a temple and build a mosque.
The oldest and most dependable book of Ramagiti is the Balmiki Ramayana. In this Ramayana, the place of birth of Rama is called Ayodhya but no Ayodhya is mentioned. And there is no similarity between the description of the city of Ayodhya and that of present-day Ayodhya.
According to Dr. Din's friend Tewari, the city of Ayodhya described in the Balmiki Ramayana and the place of his birth are located between 40 and 50 km on the banks of the Ganges in present day Banaras. This is not Ayodhya of Faizabad city.
Four famous Indian historians - Prof. RM Sharma, Prof. M Athar Ali, Prof. DN Jha, Prof. Surajvan - have jointly written an essay on the subject of "Babri Masjid Aya Ram Janam Bhoomi" which I am summarizing below:
1. In the sixteenth century and, of course, before the eighteenth century, no place in Ayodhya was sanctified and honored as it was the birthplace of Rama.
2, where the Babri Masjid was built in 1526-29, there was a Ram temple, there is no evidence of this.
3. Before the eighteenth century, there was no mention of the Babri Mosque in the birthplace of Ram, not even in the early nineteenth century did anyone demand the demolition of this mosque.
4. The idea that the Babri Masjid was built in the birthplace of Ram definitely came up after 1850.
It is almost clear that what is going on in Ram's birthplace is being done entirely because of a drama and political gain.
Originally the quarrel over the Ram temple or the birthplace of Ram was started by the British with the aim of destroying Hindu-Muslim unity in India. Their main goal was to destroy the unity of Hindus and Muslims so that they could rule this country for many more days. At the same time, the image of Muslims will be tarnished. Their aim was also to prevent the Muslims from re-ruling the country.
The idea of a Ram temple on the site of the Babri Masjid first appeared in the first half of the nineteenth century as part of British diplomacy. Through the book "Memoirs of Rice Uddin Babar, Empire of Hindustan" by the English writer Ledon, which was first published in 1813.
Before 1949, there was no quarrel between Hindus and Muslims over the Ram Temple and the Babri Masjid.
If the Muslims had adopted the policy of demolishing temples and building mosques during the long rule of the Indian subcontinent, no mosque would have been found on Indian soil. At the same time it is doubtful whether a part of this huge number of Hindus lived in India. At the same time, this is why it is not possible for a Muslim ruler to rule for such a long time in such a strict position.
References: Babri Masjid One Date Document (Volume I and Volume II), Muhammad Aref Iqbal.
Compiled and translated by: Abdur Rahman bin Abdur Razzak. Fareg Jameya Salafiyah, Banaras, India.
Post a Comment