India: Terrorists storm Ram temple, killed in encounter

Note the adjectives the BBC uses to describe the Hindus: 'hardline', 'militant', 'nationalist'.
On the accompanying news story they are...wait for it - 'right wing'.

If they could only stop reading Adam Smith long enough to try and see sense...

There is a two-volume work, on thin, Indian-publisher-style paper, by Sita Ram Goel, that lists, page after page, the temple complexes of Hindus known to have been razed by the Muslim invaders, conquerors, masters of all they surveyed and seized. The list of Hindu temples (or temple complexes)goes on and on - thousands, tens of thousands. Just the names of those temples, not details of their statuary, their sculptures pulled down and broken into pieces, the stone taken, often to build mosques.

At Ayodhya, it was particularly important to seize the Hindu temple, and declare, in an acto of geopolitical, or religio-geopolitical, triumph, that Islam was here, to stay, and had replaced utterly the claims of Hinduism.

This was, of course, exactly what happened in Jerusalem in the 7th century (or possibly the 8th, if we choose to reconsider the real, as opposed to the settled Muslim chronology, of such things as the dating of the Qur'an as it has come down to us). A single phrase in the Qur'an describes the "miraj" or Night Journey of Muhammad, who is described as ascending into Heaven, or all the way up to the Seventh Heaven, on his winged steed al-Buraq, and returning to earth within a single day (al-Buraq must have been flying very fast indeed). And from where did Muhammad ascend all the way to that Seventh Heaven? From "al-masjid al-aksa" -- the "furthest mosque." Where, oh where, could that "furthest mosque" be? The earliest commentators looked high, looked low, and debated among themselves.

Finally, along came the ruler in Damascus, the Umayyad Caliph, and he decided, along with those loyal to him, to place that "furthest mosque" smack in Jerusalem, right on top of the Temple Mount. A Byzantine martyrium, the Dome of the Rock, was appropriated and declared a Muslim site, Muslim-built for Muslim reasons (well, take a look at the place, inside and out -- a careful look). And the Al-Aksa Mosque was built as well, again by Byzantine Christian craftsmen (the Arab invaders had no such craftsmen) on the model of one of the most important Christian churches nearby (possibly the Church of the Holy Sepulchre--the one destroyed by Hakim in 1009).

In one fell swoop, the Muslims had placed their claim to Jerusalem, on the very top of the holiest site for Jews. And in appropriating a Christian building, and in claiming that Jerusalem was the site from which a certain someone had been raised up to Heaven, for a proleptic tour, but that certain someone was not the prior prophet, Jesus, but someone far, far greater -- Muhammad -- Christian claims were also, in a sense, superceded.

It was no different anywhere that Islam went. And in India, the destruction of the Ayodhya temple, and its replacement by a Muslim mosque, was a political statement above all -- a religio-political statement.

The Western world, and many who consider themselves too "advanced" for this kind of thing even in India, deplore and what's more, mock, those who wish to restore the Hindu temple at Ayodhya. They should not be so quick to do so. Before the mocking, and the distancing, and the inability to comprehend the great damage inflicted on the civilization of India by the Muslim invaders, who collectively showed less interest (save for Al-Biruni, a singular personage) in the Hindu civilizaton of India than such English scholars as Sir William Jones all by himself -- people should study up a bit on what the claims, the justified claims, of those who are dismissed as part of some "fanatical" Hindutva really are. The more one studies the matter, the more sympathetic to those who are part of that movement to draw attention to, and here and there undo, the great crimes committed in the name of Islam, everywhere that Islam's power reached in India, right into The Deccan.

Effactor:

I don't know where you are writing from about what Melanie Phillips likes to call the Biased Broadcasting Corp, but it sounds awfully like the British public needs to engage in a concerted "HonestReporting" style campaign and not just the odd Jewish citizen who will take the Beeb on.

The following set of tips on effective complaining was posted not long ago on frontpagemag.com:

ANATOMY OF A SUCCESSFUL LETTER

On Monday (June 13), BBC's 'On This Day' distorted the all-important content of UN Resolution 242, prompting HR subscriber Anat Tcherikover to write the BBC editor. Anat received a prompt response, and elicited a correction on the BBC website.

Anat's letter (view it here, with BBC's response) is a fine example of how to approach editors by e-mail. Note these effective techniques:

*Quick response within 24 hours of the article's posting on the news outlet's site.
*Factual tone - no name-calling or accusations.
*Use of own words - no cut-and-paste from an HR critique.
*Inclusion of the URL of the article in question.
*Inclusion of the URL of the evidence brought to critique the article.
*Clear, succinct line of reasoning, with summary. Anat wrote: 'I hope you'll agree that taking the single sentence... out of context creates the false impression that demands were directed solely at Israel.'
*Requesting a specific response: 'For fairness, a correction would be appreciated.'
*Respectful signoff, including one's title and address.
*Keeping HR in the loop (via a 'cc' or forward), so we can share the problem/success with our broad readership.

Good work, Anat! For more tips, see HR's guide to effective media monitoring.

As for the story about the "disputed site", hell, if the Palestinians can deny any Jewish connection to Temple Mount, destroying a temple to Rama would be done without the batting of an eyelash.

The golden plated "Dome of the Rock" most certainly dominates the Jerusalem skyline. I've seen this first hand. It's a crime against humanity that this Islamic idol is raised high over the city of David, Jerusalem.

Think of the "Dome of the Rock" as what it originally was -- a Byzantine martyrium, pressed into Muslim service. Just the way Jerusalem was pressed into service. And all of Judea. And Mesopotamia. And Syria. And Egypt. And Christianized North Africa. And -- well, keep going to the west, and then turn around and move east, all the way to the East Indies. The sky's the limit.

Quote: Many believe that Ayodhya, in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, is the birthplace of one of the most revered deities in Hinduism, Lord Rama.

LMFAO

Why dont they go on and write that Many believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem (sic), Many believe that Mohammed was a prophet so on.. What r they trying to suggest by saying "many believe". Ramayan itself says Ram was prince of Ayodhya.Dunno how Southeast Asian muzzies take this even tho they pray to allah, they still rever Ram a hangover from the days of Hinduism.

Link to books frm Koenraad Elst and Sita Ram Goel this website is a gold mine.

http://www.voi.com

sry the link is:
http://www.voi.org

Waterdragon - thanks for that. If/when my rile-o-meter goes off the scale I will implement.

Further to Hugh's post: we know here that prominent among the key words that resonate with the Arab/Muslim psyche is 'humiliation'. It drives extreme forms of reactive behaviour on the part of Muslims. The desire to impose humiliation has also historically informed much of their behaviour towards the non-Muslim world - cf Jerusalem, Ayodhya and countless other lower-level examples.

From a strategic perspective - that is, from a dealing-with-the-Islamic-threat perspective - I don't think the importance of using and exploiting such psychological chinks can be overstated.

Vikrant_Camberleykar

GPWM

While I remember...the Sunday Times carried a review of THE ARGUMENTATIVE INDIAN by Amartya Sen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1673468,00.html

Finds favour with leading Islamapologist William Dalrymple.

Good for the Indians, not all that afraid of the Moslems. They are to be admired.

Next: Get rid of that filth on top of Temple Mount.

India has dhimmitude written into its socialist genes, thanks to centuries of mughal rule. The brits came in, rediscovered India's ancient heritage secrets and cultural achievements and brought back some sembelence of pride to the diverse community. Finally, with the socialism paradigm breaking up, with creative entrpreneurial energies buzzing around, with freedom of information and expression rising, things are changing in India for the better. Its no longer considered blashphemous to express dislike for moslem "vote-bank" politics, ghetto mentality and forced backwardness in that country.

For years, the media constantly caters to the Muslims in India. We never discuss the fact that the Hindu Kush mountain range in Afghanistan translates in Pakhtuni to "Slaughter of Hindus". Naturally, when the Zoroastrians came running from Iran to escape the muslims, it wasn't because they had a lover's quarrel, on the contrary, it was because they were being given a choice: Convert or Die.

Islam has always destroyed the places of worship of other faiths; furthermore, we as Hindus are nothing to take into consideration when you see the fact that muslims don't even respect Christian or Jewish places of worship, which are supposed to be their origins.

Muslims hate Hindus for several facts, but just to name a few: We defeated the Islamic Invasion, and India is still majority Hindu. We can accept the divinity of Christ, but not Mohammed. And although the Indian government has to get a testicle transplant since they have atrophied years ago, there is a vast number of Hindus who would love to fight the muslims.

Personally, I think the attack was a good thing, since it hopefully will open some eyes. However, I am sure that muslims will claim "Hindus dressed as muslims did it, it was all government orchestrated just like 9/11."

Lost my previous comment by trying to find Hugh's profile. That sounds like a good book, but I don't see the title. I'll do a search by author.

The temple problem in India is escalating. Muslims are seeking to gain full control of the Taj Mahal, citing Sharia law as precedent -- some Muslims are buried there.

See our post from earlier:

It Doesn't Stop. Ever.

Especially read the comments section.

Dympha if u r talking about Sita Ram Goel's book then i think it's called: "Hindu Temples and What Happened to Them? Vol 1 & 2". They r for free read at www.voi.org.

Vikrant_Camberleykar--

Thanks! This site (Voice of Dharma)is just what I've been looking for. I'll be reading for weeks!

Also, a belated thanks to you for the link to the Hindu shoes. I gave you a hat tip when I posted the picture, but I don't know if you ever saw it:

Picture These Shoes

I sent it to Manolo also.

The muslims DID NOT attack that temple...how can you be so blind...IT WAS THE JEWS!!!!! The Zionist Entity is pushing its agenda across the globe to try and destroy the peaceful muslims. Muslims only fight in defence. So when you here of muslim violence or suicide bombings...it is the JEWS!!!

----sarcasm----

I made note of a subtle bit of BBC radio disinformation- about this same story- (on another JW article about the "40,000 Iranian suicide bombers") before I found this more apt posting, so here the link:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006961.php#comments

waterdragon52-

Thanks for the way to complain to the Beeb. Just what I was looking for!

gr8 Blog Dymnphna...

I do hope they do build the grand temple there. That makeshift structure has been standing there since 6th December 1992. RSS made a blunder by going to courts. They shuld've just converted the fucking mosque into a temple. I see tat BBC has removed "mostly Muslims" b4 "in which 2000 ppl died". It has been always made out that Bombay Riots were started by Hindus. I've witnessed those riots (albiet frm eyes of a toddler). My parents used to live on Haji Ali street which took brunt of the riots. The muzzies started 'em by raising black flags in their ghetto's of Mahim and Nagpada and they started killing Hindus where they're in owerwhelming concentration. Only when Bal Thackeray wrote a piece titled "Atleat Now Open the Third Eye (the mythic 3rd eye of Shiva which when opened destroys all evil"... Eunuchs" did the Hindus come out on streets. They never tell ppl about the 12 th March 1993 bombings in Bombay in which 500 ppl died which were a retaliation by Paki ISI & Indian Muzzie dominated underwrld for riots. Moreover BBC has on purpose ignored the over 1000 Hindu temples destroyed in Pakistan,Bangladesh,Afghanistan nor about the firebombings of Hindu temples in Britain in the direct aftermath of the Ayodhya event.

gr8 Blog Dymnphna...

I do hope they do build the grand temple there. That makeshift structure has been standing there since 6th December 1992. RSS made a blunder by going to courts. They shuld've just converted the fucking mosque into a temple. I see tat BBC has removed "mostly Muslims" b4 "in which 2000 ppl died". It has been always made out that Bombay Riots were started by Hindus. I've witnessed those riots (albiet frm eyes of a toddler). My parents used to live on Haji Ali street which took brunt of the riots. The muzzies started 'em by raising black flags in their ghetto's of Mahim and Nagpada and they started killing Hindus where they're in owerwhelming concentration. Only when Bal Thackeray wrote a piece titled "Atleat Now Open the Third Eye (the mythic 3rd eye of Shiva which when opened destroys all evil"... Eunuchs" did the Hindus come out on streets. They never tell ppl about the 12 th March 1993 bombings in Bombay in which 500 ppl died which were a retaliation by Paki ISI & Indian Muzzie dominated underwrld for riots. Moreover BBC has on purpose ignored the over 1000 Hindu temples destroyed in Pakistan,Bangladesh,Afghanistan nor about the firebombings of Hindu temples in Britain in the direct aftermath of the Ayodhya event.

To put the Ayodhia temple situation in context. Lord Rama is not properly a god, but one of the saving incarnations or avatarah of Lord Vishnu, the supreme god - or rather, one of the three chief faces of aspects of God (Brahma, Siva, Vishnu). He is the protagonist of one of the two great Indian epics, the Ramayana ("Journey of Rama"; the other, whose protagonist is another avatar, Krishna, is the Mahbharata - "Great Book of the Indians"). In the Ramayana, Ayodhia is the capital of Rama's universal empire, and the city's name means "wombless" - that is, unborn, ever-existing, the Eternal City. There are few sites in India more laden with cultural and religious meaning; VAranasi/Benares, perhaps; but Ayodhia has a resonance in Indian culture that is difficult to match with any European site. Think of something with the epic significance of Troy or Roncesvalles, the ritual and pilgrimage overtones of Santiago de Compostella, Lourdes or Rome, and the heritage of, say, Prague. Whether or not the old Babri Mosque effectively overlay an older Temple of Rama, Muslim presence in such a site is very difficult for Hindus to bear.