Comments by "BHARATH CHANDRAN, JUST REMVER THAT" (@Your-god150) on "'Babri Masjid...': World Muslim Bloc Attacks India Over Ram Temple Construction | Details" video.

 @ziyad2554 all mujalmaan group needs to understand that it is jai sree ramhu akbar! ☝️😊🕉🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
1
 @TabrezAhamed-hp9qg it was a temple before mosque. Now the mosque is being rebuilt in another location.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg there was conclusive evidence of ram temple. Asi reports are based on historicity + archaeology. Both coincided well. They got inscription of who built the temple which age etc. There was shrine where water poured to the idols flow outside. Ram artifacts. A short lived 10th century temple. Many more all these found beneath the mosque. Moreover the mosque itself is not built with own foundation, rather it was built on preexisting foundation. These were the evidence. In addition to all these, the historical records from British says it was a ram temple. The mugals used the term "masjit janmastan". This term janmastan is a sanskrit word. Leftist historians ( opppsition) claim that temple was built next to mosque. Sc questioned why is a ram chabitra built next to wall segregating mosque and why is ram chabitra built at a place where you can direct darshan of the central dome". These questions the opposition couldn't answer. Therfore the opposion's claims did not stand the test of critical observation and logical reasoning. Also that an 18th century Persian sanskrit text quote that babri masjit was built above ram temple. So due to support of both literacy sources + historical sources by various rulers + evidence of archeology all coinciding it is strong conclusive proof.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg the problem is a muslim mindset is very dangerous. They see this majit as a win for Islam because it was built over a preexisting ram temple. You want to demolish that and build your mosque and you are bringing your own theories. Ram evidence are not myth. In fact it has more evidence than the existence of muhammads version of Allah. The bridge connecting the sea route coincide with the literary sources; then artifacts of idols in those location; old inscriptions on walls on those places of various personalities those described in literature etc all these coincide with the description of the text this is how historicity of various culture is studied. If you question this then automatically Allah of muhammads version becomes a myth because there is no evidence of Muhammad seeing gabriel. No evidence of Allah of muhammads version.
1
 @TabrezAhamed-hp9qg there are strong conclusive proof it was ram temple. Lots of compelling evidence are there that the mosque was built over temple. Many.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg they have conclusive and compelling evidence it was a temple before mosque. It was argued in sc and the sc gave clean chit to build temple.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg *scriptural evidence + historical evidence: ( Persian literature of 18th century says it that the majit built over ram temple; British also told the same) + continuous cultural evidence of ram worship there+ archeology ( artifacts of shrine of water flowing out of temple from the shrine was recovered ; the masjit irself standing on foundation of temple was proved; a short lived 10 th century temple was found beneath the mosque; old artifact of inscriptions of what was the place earlier was obtained and proved before court etc) + the term janmastan attached to masjit is relatively new because it is sanskrit term and not arabic. Etc etc lots of compelling evidence was proved by the archeological department in the court.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg "u ppl consider ayodhya as a birth place of him any reference from your scripture of just a myth" "According to the top court, 'Shlok 10' of Valmiki's Ranayan stated that Kaushalya gave birth to a son who was the Lord of the whole world and Ayodhya was blessed with his arrival. The top Court further said that 'Shlokas' in 'Valmiki Ramayan' refered to birth of Lord Ram with planetary situation at Ayodhya... The Bench also noted that a Witness had referred to Tulisidas's Ramcharitramanas as another religious scripture to prove that the disputed site was the birth place of Lord Ram. The 'Chaupaiyas' quoted by one of the witnesses referred to Vishnu taking human form in Avadhpuri, that is, Ayodhya and specifically mentioned that he would take human form at the house of Dasaratha and Kausalya said the bench.... The supreme court in a historic verdict backed the construction of Ram Temple by a government trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for mosque in the hindu-holy town".
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg "u ppl consider ayodhya as a birth place of him any reference from your scripture or just a myth" "According to the top court, 'Shlok 10' of Valmiki's Ranayan stated that Kaushalya gave birth to a son who was the Lord of the whole world and Ayodhya was blessed with his arrival. The top Court further said that 'Shlokas' in 'Valmiki Ramayan' refered to birth of Lord Ram with planetary situation at Ayodhya... The Bench also noted that a Witness had referred to Tulisidas's Ramcharitramanas as another religious scripture to prove that the disputed site was the birth place of Lord Ram. The 'Chaupaiyas' quoted by one of the witnesses referred to Vishnu taking human form in Avadhpuri, that is, Ayodhya and specifically mentioned that he would take human form at the house of Dasaratha and Kausalya said the bench.... The supreme court in a historic verdict verdict backed the construction of Ram Temple by a government trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for mosque in the hindu-holy town".
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg "ayodhya as a birth place of him any reference from your scripture of just a myth" "According to the top court, 'Shlok 10' of Valmiki's Ranayan stated that Kaushalya gave birth to a son who was the Lord of the whole world and Ayodhya was blessed with his arrival. The top Court further said that 'Shlokas' in 'Valmiki Ramayan' refered to birth of Lord Ram with planetary situation at Ayodhya... The Bench also noted that a Witness had referred to Tulisidas's Ramcharitramanas as another religious scripture to prove that the disputed site was the birth place of Lord Ram. The 'Chaupaiyas' quoted by one of the witnesses referred to Vishnu taking human form in Avadhpuri, that is, Ayodhya and specifically mentioned that he would take human form at the house of Dasaratha and Kausalya said the bench.... The supreme court in a historic verdict verdict backed the construction of Ram Temple by a government trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for mosque in the hindu-holy town".
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg "ayodhya as a birth place of him any reference from your scripture of just a myth" "According to the top court, 'Shlok 10' of Valmiki's Ranayan stated that Kaushalya gave birth to a son who was the Lord of the whole world and Ayodhya was blessed with his arrival. The top Court further said that 'Shlokas' in 'Valmiki Ramayan' refered to birth of Lord Ram with planetary situation at Ayodhya... The Bench also noted that a Witness had referred to Tulisidas's Ramcharitramanas as another religious scripture to prove that the disputed site was the birth place of Lord Ram.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg "ayodhya as a birth place of him any reference from your scripture of just a myth" "The 'Chaupaiyas' quoted by one of the witnesses referred to Vishnu taking human form in Avadhpuri, that is, Ayodhya and specifically mentioned that he would take human form at the house of Dasaratha and Kausalya said the bench.... The supreme court in a historic verdict backed the construction of Ram Temple by a government trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for mosque in the hindu-holy town".
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg sources : the Deccan herald.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg there more evidence from contemporary Tamil sangam literatures adding up more and more weight to the ramachandran born in ayodhya.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg for you what's your problem? We are just taking only what belonged to us and simultaneously restoring the mosque in alternative place in the same holy town of Hindus. Then why are you upset? This temple is very important for Hindus as much as mecca is important for muslims and Vatican is important to Christians. This temple then gyan wapsi temple and the Krishna temple of mathura. The truth is there are millions of hindu bhuddhist sites floored by the Islamic invasion, we are not touching all those (for the sake of harmony and good will) except these 3 important places alone. Even tajmahal is standing on a foundation of hindu temple below we are not touching that except the 3 important places, one of those was ram mandir. Now 2 pending ie gyanwapi temple and Krishna temple at mathura.
1
@TabrezAhamed-hp9qg I gave you reference above comment. Slok 10 valmiki ramayan.
1