From: sankar@hal.COM (Sankar Bandy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: ISLAMIC WORLD NEWS (21st)
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:53:19 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: quality.hal.com

In article <1992Jul22.203411.21135@cbfsb.cb.att.com> onf@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (omar.farooq) writes:
>>In Article 25992 (4 more) in soc.culture.pakistan:
>>From: sankar@hal.COM (Sankar Bandy)
>>Subject: Re: ISLAMIC WORLD NEWS (21st)
>>Date: 22 Jul 1992 11:26:47 -0700
>>Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
>>Lines: 48
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: quality.hal.com
>>
>>Sankar Bandy writes..
>
>>It is not true that religious structures once converted has not been
>>reconverted. As far as I know , when the Turks conquered Spain they
>>destroyed all the beautiful churches and built Mosques on most of
>>them. However, when Spain came back to Christian power all of these
>>erstwhile churches were restored.
>
>My point was that many times ruling groups have changed a temple from
>what it was originally built for.  Yes many of them may have been
>reconverted back but the prevailing outcome is that most of the
>monuments were left alone.  You can go to Spain and see many churches
>that were razed to the ground and the Mosques built on top are still
>intact, and vice versar for the Churches that were built on top of
>mosques.

That is the point precisely. How many converted Mosques have been
reconverted to Mandirs in India ? The point you were trying to make
was as if this whole issue is unprecedented. It has happened, is
happening and will keep on happening as long people think their 
religion is better than others.

>By the way , the Turks did not conquer Spain, the Arabs/Moors did.
>
>NOTE: There is a difference between converting a structure from one
>temple to another and destroying a building to make a new one.

The difference is only in the jargon, believe me. Let me tell you
what jargon VHP is using. They are proposing to move the mosque
stone by stone to another site and rebuilding it there (at their
own cost :-)). Lets not forget we are talking symbolically here.
The architecture of temples, churches and mosques are all unique.
So actually the VHP proposal is much better than if they said,
they would construct a temple structure on top of the Mosque(if
it was possible).

>
>>can you show a single proof of mosques in East Punjab having been 
>>converted to temples or gurudwaras ?
>
>My family is originally from Jhullunder (Indian Punjab) and the 
>village they were in was predominantly Muslim.  Upon the time of 
>partition, most of the village was destroyed and the two Mosques
>there(Jamia masjid and masjid-ulmomin) were gurdwaras when I visited
>that area 3 years ago.  And many people there told us of similar
>incidents elsewhere.
>Again, I am not complaining, this sort of stuff happened mutually
>between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims.  So it's an observation and
>don't take it as provocation.

Thanks for correcting me. In that case, why did not these people
who are crying themselves hoarse now to save the masjid, do the
same thing that time ? All the more reason why we should not
make it such a big issue. Or is it that destruction should
occur in parity. For every temple destroyed in Pakistan we
should destroy one mosque in India, and that will be perfectly
rational!!!

This is IMO just a religious prestige issue nothing more nothing
less. 

>
>Later
>Omar
>omar.farooq@att.com

Sankar