1.Let Muslims realise that they too were Hindus before they were converted to Islam by force humiliating their ancestors. 2.It is an irrefutable fact yhe Babari structure was built on the ruins of a Hindu Temple and there is enough evidence in support of that. The intellectually blind secularists do not accept the evidence because they do not want to. It is difficult to convince anybody who mulishly insist that two plus two is five. 3. Support of self seeking politicians like Mulayam, Paswan and Lalu is superficial; it is only lip sympathy. It is better for Muslims not to rely upon them. It is the goodwill Hindus that provide security to Muslims, not a handful of self seeking leaders. 4. The structure was without the essential minaret(s).As such, it cannot be a mosque. 5. The Sunni Muslims have no stake in the property as that belongs to the Shias.Shia Muslims have no objection to the construction of the Temple for Lord Ram Lala. 6. The title suit of Sunni Muslims was considered time barred. Yet, they had secured 1/3 share in the property, and that is a big gain.
Re: Solution to Ayodhya dispute
by zxz on Oct 09, 2010 03:50 PM
So why was the temple not time barred. it was last standing if we assume it was there 500 years ago!
Muslims can protect themselves, goodwill is not needed for protection.
Re: Re: Re: Solution to Ayodhya dispute
by zxz on Oct 09, 2010 03:58 PM
yesterday 50 oil tankers of US were burnt by Taliban. So that's just next door. Not an ideal situation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution to Ayodhya dispute
by JGN on Oct 09, 2010 03:59 PM
And howmany P0rkis did they ki11 with their dr0nes? How many Shiiiias, Ahmediyas, Sufis, etc were b1asted by your j1hadiBr0s?
Re: kbc
by bak bak on Oct 09, 2010 03:43 PM
no one understands arabic here except ur ancestors whose pussiesWereBangedInHarems by arabDicks.....so, english plz!!!!!
Re: kbc
by bak bak on Oct 09, 2010 03:43 PM
no one understands arabic here except ur ancestors whose pussiesWereBangedInHarems by arabDicks.....so, english plz!!!!!
