Refuting Arguments of Babri lovers

The sickular (secular) anti – Hindus do not dispute that Babar was a foreign invader. After his death, as per his wishes his body was shifted and is buried somewhere in Afghanistan. Even today the Afghans consider him as a foreigner. Anyway, this Babar destroyed the Sri Ram Temple, just as the bigot Aurangazeb destroyed the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. By simply destroying another’s property, can the destroyer or his followers acquire any vested interest in the property. If our sickular morons accept this proposition, then, even today any x, y, z, can simply march into Rashtrapathi Bhavan and occupy it, provided he is able to defeat our Army and Police. The property will automatically get transferred to him by his mere forcible occupation. Does it make any sense ? This is also the position of Babar and his followers. Whether he made a mosque or a harem is immaterial. An illegal occupant has no claim whatsoever in the eyes of the law. This is the position of Babar, all his forcibly occupied properties has the status of  only “stolen property”.
 
Another argument is that, when India got independence, all enemy property were confiscated by the “Custodian of Enemy Property”. Babar and his descendants were all invaders, thereby enemies of Bharatvarsha. Thus all their ill gotten wealth, properties, palaces etc legally passed on to the “Custodian of Enemy Property”. Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi alongwith the partially destroyed temple on the ruins of which Babar hurriedly erected a temporary Namaz place, automatically got transferred to the “Custodian of Enemy Property”, irrespective of the fact as to whether there was a transfer or not. So correctly speaking the property is in the possession of the Government of India, through the “Custodian of Enemy Property”. The present day Muslims have no claim whatsoever on this property.
 
Next, even if there was a mosque, does it mean it cannot be shifted out ? Nowadays, in many Airports, in our country, a place is kept apart for Muslims to pray. What should we call such structures ? Is it a Mosque in an Airport or an Airport in a Mosque ? Suppose that airport terminal is to be shifted, does it mean that the place should be handed over to the Muslims just because they were praying there ? Even if Muslims were offering prayers in Ram Janam Bhoomi, does it mean that everybody else loses their claim ?
 
Going by the logic of the Muslims, airports were namaz is offered can never be demolished even for expansion purpose. What will GMR and CIAL DO ? Many shopping complexes owned by Muslims are now having Namaz Corners, again, is it a shopping complex in a mosque or a mosque in a shopping complex ? Can these structures never be destroyed for expasion, renovation or acquired for public utility purpose ?
 
So whether namaz was offered at Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi is of no consequence at all. You cannot trespass into another’s property, do namaz and then claim ownership of that place. What perverted logic it is.

Responses