It was shocking to read Subramanian Swamy's view that mosques are not as sacred as temples (Oct. 8). Attending prayers five times a day in a mosque is carried out as per Prophet Mohammed's (pbuh) clear instructions. There are numerous references of the Prophet emphasising that a prayer offered in a mosque has more significance in the eyes of Allah than the one offered elsewhere. It is the strong faith of Muslim brethren that if one attends to his worship with dedication and sincerity in the mosque, he is certain to earn forgiveness for all his past misdeeds. Offering prayer in mosques is not only sacred but also eliminates inequality between persons.
Dr. Swamy has quoted an archaic House of Lords verdict. Is it applicable to India or every case under the sun? The arch adversary of Lord Ram is neither Babar nor the Muslim community. It is the politicians. Muslims do not mind losing 2.77 acres of land. But whom do we hand it over to? To the Hindutva elements?
T.V.A. Abdul Malik,
There can be no place for a-temple-is-more-sacred-than-a-mosque argument in our secular society. Such views will wound the feelings of Muslims who have remained mostly calm despite the High Court verdict not favouring them. The fundamental issue is not whether one place of worship is more sacred but who is the title holder to the Babri Masjid site.
M. Mohamed Jalaludeen,
The sacredness of a place of worship is decided by the people who worship in it. They do not need any direction from a court.
The contention that a temple is more sacred than a mosque is against the principles of secularism. The sacredness of a place of worship is determined by people based on their beliefs and perceptions.
Even assuming that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya some hundreds of thousands years ago, how can we conclude that he was born at the specific spot where the Babri Masjid was situated — not a few yards this side or that? The ASI's findings have been challenged by eminent historians and archaeologists. Every place of worship is ‘sacred' for the people concerned.
As for the Nataraja statue case Dr. Swamy sites, it had to be returned to India because it was smuggled out of India to England. Could the judges have refused to return the statue had it been stolen from a museum instead of a temple?
If a law implies that a mosque is less important to Muslims than a temple is to Hindus, it is the law that needs to change. What an individual or a group of individuals hold as important or sacred is up to them. I might consider an article sacred because it was used by my grandfather and someone else might consider a similar article sacred because it was used by a close friend. The only relevant thing is whether we have gained possession of the articles in a lawful manner. Going into discussions like grandfather is more important than friend, etc., is ridiculous.
F. Shahul Hameed,
A verdict given in the U.K. cannot become a law in India. As far as the Constitution is concerned, it does not differentiate between a mosque and a temple. Both are places of worship and both can be demolished for public purposes. There are many examples where temples have been demolished by the government for public purposes.