Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders.. This Historic proof is still there... Ancient mosque in kerela is much much older than the existance of Tipu Sultan..
I coudn't paste the pictures: but u can goto
http://kerala4u.in/49/thrissur
And search for the text Kodangallur
These are pictures of the first masjid in India, in a place called Kodangallur in Kerala. The story about this masjid is that the king of that place, Raja Rama Kulasekhara accepted Islam at the hands of the Sahabi of RasoolAllah (SAS), Malik Deenar (RA) (not the Tabayi of the same name but the Sahabi) who came here in 4 Hijri. He gave him and his companions land to build a masjid which was built by local carpenters. It resembles a Kerala temple in construction and has a brass lamp for lighting. Inside it has a minbar and mihraab. Just outside the main chamber are the graves of the son of Malik Deenar's son and his wife. Malik Deenar (RA) himself left this place and went to Kasargod where his grave is.
It is said that Raja Rama Kulasekhara then left to go to meet RasoolAllah (SAS) but died enroute (or maybe after he met Him - are there any ahadith to this effect?) and is buried in Salala in Oman. Can someone in Oman verify this please? Jazakallahu khairan.
Regrettably the grave of Malik Deenar (RA) in Kasargod has been made into a dargah with all attendant charmin g practices. But the graves of his son and daughter in law in the masjid in Kodangallur seem to be free from most such practices. The only thing I saw was that they place some green colored cloth on the two graves which they then sell as tabarruk. But at least none of the abominations that we see in the dargahs of most Sufis are done here.
This masjid also had the dubious honor of a visit by the current President of India who predictably called it a symbol of secularism. How a place of worship can be a symbol of godlessness is something which only a rocket scientist can understand, it seems.
At any rate this masjid is historic proof that Islam has been in India fro m 629 AD (4 Hijri) for 1376 years. So much for the BJP theories of Muslims being new comers to India.
RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by digambar mhatre on Feb 27, 2007 05:32 PM Permalink
Hi I am not a historian or scholer on such subject but being Hindu we will treat Aurangazeb as a EVIL TO THE HINDUISM ...His treatment to other religions is shame to humanity on EARTH. There is no sense in exibiting such shameless/barberic personalities work. We respect QURAN, we respect Mohd.Paigambar but hate such personalities.
RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Perv Sharma on Feb 28, 2007 07:28 AM Permalink
Mate nothing new.
It only proves how broad minded Hindus were.
This fact was known to other cultures and that's why the parsis (from Iran) migrated when they were being forced to convert to Islam (this forcefull conversion shows how islam was spreading in that era).
The parsis have lived and practised their faith peacefully and that's why no Hindu has ever said anything against them.
RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Chandra Gowda on Mar 06, 2007 12:39 PM Permalink
hi,
Too much broadminded is not good for hindus, it will be a problem already problem these muslims and christians wil take more advantage, first we should be united all hindus are same kannadiga,tamilian, telugite,keralites, sikhs, punj, maharas, bengalis, assam,etc., should be united then they will be scared of us. united we stand divided we fall,
RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by biju nair on Feb 27, 2007 07:15 PM Permalink
Ahmad is right only at South Indian Context.
Muslims came to South India especially Kerala as traders. The tolarent Hindu rulers had provided space and logistics to build mosques for the Muslims since Hindus respected other religious beleives also and accepted those beleives also can be right.
But the north and west Indian scenario is entirely different. Islam propogated through violent invasions similar to the ones described in Muslim Holy Book as expeditions.
Since holy Book is not giving any respect to non beleivers(Kaffirs) the invadors destroyed all idols and their worshippers.
RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Shameer on Mar 03, 2007 07:48 PM Permalink
Question...Mr. Layman and Secular Who paid u for waisting these much time to spread lies and hate against islam and Muslims.
RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Unsung Humanist on Feb 28, 2007 12:35 AM Permalink
Hey Layman, you are at it yet again. First and foremost, to define secularism, you need to have at least two religions, otherwise it just falls flat. Now, to dismiss the entire lot of Muslims as rigid, closed inside the four walls of religion would be taking things too far. To say that Islam is closed to reform, would be discount whatever debate is happening in pockets. Educated Muslims are surely open to reform and you could sense that in Kerala where a culture of debate within Islam is evolving. Seeing everying in black and white is simplistic, seeing Hinduism as one single entity would just be far from truth. You forget the simmerings of discontent within Hinduism which often come to the fore in the feudal hinterland of our great country. I don't want to get into a which-religion-is=superior kind of debate. But it would suffice to say that the entry of Islam to a deeply casteist soceity was a radical challenge to teh existing traditions. The universal brotherhood concept, the equality of all men before God was something unpalatable to the Brahmanical hierarchy. The tensions started then, and the wealth-mongering conquests of many Muslim rulers only added to the threat. Yet, despite this challenge, Islam did not uproot the local culture, in this case the Hindu tradition. That tells the story of a synergy between two great religions. Now to belittle one to uphold the greatness of the other would be to negate centuries of peaceful coexistence between Hindus and Muslims. We read history mainly from the rulers' perspective without understanding the common people to people contacts on teh ground. History was often written by the victors, embellishing the exploits of some and rubbishing the achievements of the losers. That trend still continues. When we read about Aurangazeb, we hardly get to know what transpired between ordinary Hindus and Muslims under his regime. Generalisations are easy, but to understand the threads of ordinary life requires painstaking research. When we Hindus and Muslims hurl abuses and vitious generalisations against eachother, we seem to insult generations of our ancestors who lived in peace.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 10:06 AM Permalink
How can you claim there is Synergy between Islam and Hinduism ? It leads to a paradox. Let me demonstrate.
1. Hinduism says all paths to the truth are equally valid. 2. Islam says our way is the ONLY way, we will ignore their ridiculous notion of a vengeful GOD for the moment.
Now Hinduism is a superset of Islam, however because Islams claims there is ONLY one way this leads to a paradox. If you know basic set theory, it should be obvious.
If Islam were to say we like our way better and even thought we are in disagreement, we agree to disagree.
However, the Koran does make some positive noises about accepting different view points but then contradicts itself in other parts where it claims the exact opposite.
Regarding your view on history studies, lets take the history of the common man,please read Guru Nanaks "Babur Vani", you will not only get a good idea of Baburs venality but also his cruelty. Guru Nanak was talking about the state and plight of the common man.
Was Banda Bahadur not a common man ? Why did the mughals rip his (4 year old) sons heart out and stuff it into his mouth, when he refused to convert to Islam. Why were 700 hundred of his followers executed for not agreeing to convert. If they were not common men, what were they common martians ? Please don't insult us with your patronizing attitude, other people can read too and make up their own mind. Did not the common mans life relove around his places of worship that were destroyed by the rulers and something about which they boasted and something that modern muslims take pride in. You only have to see then names of the Pakistani missiles to understand the reality, no amount of sophistry is going to change these facts.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Perv Sharma on Feb 28, 2007 07:36 AM Permalink
Unsung
You are even unread. Talking about casteism in Hinduism, how can you turn your blind eye towards what islam introduced. Didn't the madrasa teach you how islam introduced the concept of making non-believers and people who surrendered in wars as Slaves, slaves. Some of your brothers till now say to Hindus as slaves.
So much for islam bring equality. Shame on it for making another human being a slave. Hindus showed how they treated other human being when 1000 years ago Mohammed Ghouri was defeatd first time by Pritvi and still allowed to go back. So don't compare a barbaric islamic religion to a tolerant religion like Hinduism.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Mosque in India were much much earlier than the invaders..
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 02:42 AM Permalink
Wrong again, you sound too much like a lit. crit. grad. You CAN have secularism with ONE religion.
"The promotion of secular policies like the separation of church and state. Not to be confused with Secularization, which aims to be a purely objective and value-free theory of in the sociology of religion. The USA is a secular state because the Constitution forbids establishment of a religion, but it is not secularised compared with much of the rest of the Western world."
I'm hoping and praying hard that the (Islamic) reform in Kerala pays dividends, really I am but if were a betting man I would not put money on it.
Where are the facts to backup your assertions regarding your claims ? Please don't make things up as you go along. What was Tipu Sultan doing ? If not uprooting Indian culture and Hinduism and this was in 1788 how come as per your claim all the Hindu lower castes because of the oppression they faced hadn't by then all converted to Islam because of it's brotherhood and equality etc.
You are well advised to read Dr. Ambedkars essay on why Islam is an even worse choice for Dalits. Don't take my word for it, read what he had to say before you go forth spouting your wishy/washy stories.
If you read his book: "Pakistan or the partition of India" Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. esp. the chapter:
"Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society"
It weakens the argument a (wee) bit about the lower castes embracing the "largely theoritical" egalitarianism claimed by Islam.
Let me remind you that Muslims were leaders in trading of slavery till the Europeans took over, the Koran explicitly mentions slavery and the right of Muslims to keep slaves, just because it isn't called caste doesn't make it's claims of "Islamic brotherhood" justified. It comes with its own version of caste except that it's labeled differently. So please spare us this sanctimonious lecturing.
