Delhi Jama Masjid Imam Bukhari assaults Muslim Journalist for supporting Hindus

Journalist who was assaulted by Syed Bhukhari & his thugs.
Image courtesy: Indian Express

Anti-Hindu bigot Imam Bukhari who along with his hooligans attacked a Journalist.

Delhi's Jama Masjid Imam Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari is a known Islamic terrorist supporter (refer his visits to homes of "Batla House" encountered terrorists) & Anti-Hindu bigot no different than his fellow Muslim apologist politicians like Digvijay Singh, Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan, Mamta Banerjee, Sitaram Yechuri and many others. Bukhari as can be seen in the video evidence below attacked a Muslim journalist Mr. Mohammed Abdul Waheed Chisti, editor of Urdu weekly "Dastaan-e-Awadh", who merely asked a question about Hindus legitimate claim on Ayodhya & God Shri Ram Janambhoomi. Chisti asked the Shahi Imam to spell out his stand on the mention of King Dashrath's name in land records of 1528 before the Babri Dhancha was constructed. He asked, "Why you are trying to mislead Muslims when the revenue record of 1528 indicates that Raja Dashrath palace stood on the (disputed) spot and after the high court verdict that it should be handed over to Ram Lalla (idols of baby Ram)?"

As per News reports below, Bukhari threatened Mr. Chisti with dire consequences in full view of journalists and policemen. Bukhari threatened Journalist to hold his tongue or his neck would be broken. However, no action has been initiated against him so far.

Very unbecoming of a self-proclaimed mass leader of section of Indian Muslims. And fake secularists & Hinduphobic Leftists want Hindus to make peace with such Anti-Hindu bigots who can't even stand the idea of giving up their claim on Hindu's land, encroached by them. Shame! Religion of Peace indeed.

1. Bukhari thrashes scribe over Ayodhya query by Rediff News

   Imam of the Delhi Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, on Thursday lost his cool when a journalist questioned him regarding the Ayodhya verdict during a press conference, following which he was thrashed by supporters of the cleric.
   
   Mohammed Abdul Waheed Chisti, a reporter with a local Urdu daily, raised a question relating to the ownership of the disputed site before the construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya.
   
   Chisti asked the Shahi Imam to spell out his stand on the mention of King Dashrath's name in land records of 1528 before the Babri mosque was constructed.
   
   Initially, Bukhari skirted the question but when the journalist insisted, he was threatened.
   
   "Get him out of this conference, Bukhari shouted while accusing the journalist of working against the interests of the Muslims," he said.
   
   Bukhari's supporters then thrashed the journalist in full public glare.
   
   People like him will 'not be tolerated by Muslims at any cost,' the Shahi Imam said before leaving the press conference.
   
   Chisti said he was only seeking a clarification from Bukhari, who had needlessly got provoked. The journalist later filed an FIR against Bukhari and his supporters at Hazratganj kotwali.
   
   Earlier, Bukhari said the September 30 verdict of the Allahabad high court on the Ayodhya title suits was based on faith and was not acceptable to the Muslims.
   
   He said there was no question of evolving a consensus or even holding talks for giving the mosque site for temple construction.



2. Bukhari’s effigy burnt in Lucknow by Two Circles


3. Uttar Pradesh journalists demand Bukhari's arrest by Sify


4. Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee minority cell attacks Jama Masjid Imam. Dont trust CONgress as they play both side of game.


5. Journalists demand CBI probe into attack on reporter. Good effort but everyone knows neither Mayawati nor CONgress, both Pro-Muslim conservative politician/party, can dare to touch this certified a*shole Bukhari.


6. Journalist assaulted in Shahi Imam’s media conference by Indian Express

   An FIR was lodged against the Shahi Imam on a complaint by Mohammad Abdul Waheed Chisti, the reporter of a Urdu daily, at the Hazratganj police station in Lucknow. The case was registered under sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
   
   When Chisti, during the course of the press conference, asked the Imam why he was instigating Muslims against the court order on Ayodhya title suits, the Imam got infuriated, questioned his credentials and alleged that he was an agent of the Congress and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). Calling him a traitor to the cause of the community, the Imam threatened him of dire consequences. Later, the journalist was chased and assaulted.
   
   Alleging that the AIMPLB and the Congress were conspiring to force Muslims to accept the court verdict, Bukhari said it was not based on law, evidence and Constitution but on faith, and would challenge it in the Supreme Court.
   
   When pointed out that senior BJP leader L K Advani has said the verdict was based on the report of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) which had conducted excavations near the disputed site, Bukhari said, "Muslims reject the ASI report with the contempt it deserves. The report was changed to suit the political interests of the Congress. The original report of the ASI was different. After all, the ASI is under the control of the Central government."



7. Scribe lodges FIR against Bukhari by Times of India

   The maulana, who has been highly critical of the Allahabad high court's judgment on Ayodhya title suit, lost his cool when Chisti reminded him about his earlier stand that Muslims must respect the verdict. Appearing to be in a particularly dark mood, he scowled menacingly at the reporter and brusquely ordered him to be quiet and take his seat.
   
   When Chisti didn't stop, Bukhari ordered the man to hold his tongue or his neck would be broken. " The press conference broke up soon after and Chisti was surrounded by TV crews. This enraged Bukhari further and he charged towards the scribe who had to be rescued by other journalists present there, but not before he was roughed up by Bukhari's men.



8. Imam Bukhari’s men attack scribe asking ‘difficult’ questions by DNA

   Things were fine till the time Abdul Wahid Chishti, a reporter from an Urdu daily, decided to grill the maulana. As he started asking difficult questions, Bukhari started getting infuriated.
   
   The journalist asked why the entire land, now recognised legally as Ram’s birthplace, should not be handed over to Hindus. He also reasoned that such a land could not be used for a mosque according to Shariat (Islamic law).
   
   This was clearly more than what the shahi imam could put up with. He flew into a fit of anger and started shouting at the journalist. At one point, he even said, “It is because of traitors like you that Babri Masjid was demolished”, andtold the journalist to shut up and leave.
   
   Soon afterwards, Bukhari’s men told him that the journalist was talking to TV channels outside. At this, he leapt out of the conference hall asking his aides to catch hold of the scribe and beat him up.
   
   As his men attacked Chishti, some journalists grappled to stave them off. Bukhari was shouting at the top of his voice threatening the journalist with dire consequences.
   
   “The maulana is a respected cleric, but the way he acted today, it was worse than a hooligan,” Chishti told reporters soon after the melee ended.
   
   He has lodged a criminal case at the local police station, alleging that Bukhari and his men assaulted him and even threatened to kill him.
   
   Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the Ayodhya case, castigated the maulana for “irresponsible” and “shameful” conduct. He said the attack on the scribe was a result of “frustration”.
   
   “The imam is frustrated as his efforts to sell himself as the messiah of Muslims have failed,” Ansari said, calling Bukhari an “opportunist” trying to capitalise on the Ayodhya verdict to serve vested interests.



9. Bukhari beats up journalist by Hindustan Times

   Infuriated by an inconvenient question on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, the Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid Ahmad Bukhari slapped and punched a journalist at a press conference in Lucknow on Thursday. He even threatened to kill the journalist, a Muslim, after he asked Bukhari:
   “Why you are trying to mislead Muslims when the revenue record of 1,528 indicates that Raja Dashrath palace stood on the (disputed) spot and after the high court verdict that it should be handed over to Ram Lalla (idols of baby Ram)?”
   
   As soon as Abdul Waheed Chishti of the weekly Dastan-e-Awadh asked the question, Bukhari abused him verbally and shouted: “Shut up and sit down, you Congress agent. I will chop your neck off.”
   
   As soon as the press conference was over, the electronic media swooped on Chishti for his reaction.
   
   Bhukhari, standing in a corner of the hotel hall, watched for some time. His men tried to pull Chishti away from the TV cameras but were pushed away by the mediamen. That’s when a seething Bukhari rushed towards Chishti and assaulted him. The police have booked Bukhari for assault.



10. Delhi: Journalist thrashed by Delhi Jama Masjid Imam's supporters by NDTV. The secular censored version of News.


11. FIR against Imam Bukhari for assault on reporter by Express Buzz

    The move followed a complaint by Mohammad Abdul Wahid Chishti, a journalist working for Dastan-e-Awadh daily/ weekly newspaper, published in both Urdu and Hindi, who was beaten up by Bukhari. The Imam also beat up a few other journalists and threatened the media in general to be aware of his power to teach them a lesson if they ever dared to question him about his views.
    
    During the conference, Chishti referred to the land record of 1528, before the construction of the Babri mosque, saying that the Ramjanamsthan belonged to King Dashrath, father of Lord Rama, and when Bukhari had announced before the Allahabad High Court verdict on September 30 that he and the Muslim community would accept the verdict, whatever it might be, then why was he not accepting the verdict now.
    
    At this Bukhari called Chishti an agent of the Congress and of anti-Muslim forces, and loudly abused him.
    
    Subsequently, while some scribes were talking to Chishti about his reference to the 1500 land records, other scribes were talking to Bukhari.
    
    Just then one of the Imam’s supporters informed him that the scribe was telling something about him to media persons. Bukhari immediately rushed towards Chishti and thrashed him, even as he called his supporters to kill the journalist. When some other journalists tried to save Chishti they were also thrashed by Bukhari and some of his supporters. The Imam’s security personnel and even the city police present on the occasion were more interested in protecting him than preventing him from resorting to open violence recorded by the electronic media.



12. Shahi Imam's supporters thrash scribe by India Today

    Slamming the journalist Bukhari shouted, "You have been sent here as part of a conspiracy. There are thousands like you here. Shut up and sit down."
    
    A little after, Bukhari's men told him that the journalist was talking to TV channels outside. At this, he leapt out of the conference hall asking his aides to catch hold of the reporter and beat him up. Bukhari was shouting at the top of his voice threatening the journalist with dire consequences.
    
    "I have filed an FIR against Shahi Imam. I feel there is a threat to my life. I was assaulted by his supporters. He can cause me harm," Chishti said.



13. Urdu Editors Guild condemns attack on Lucknow journalist by TCN News

    “Urdu Editors Guild is shocked to see the growing numbers of attack on the working journalists. The recent case in question being of physically assaulting Mr. Abdul Waheed Chishti, a journalist of an Urdu daily, by the Imam of Shahi Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari. It is to be noted that he was involved in a similar attack on another scribe Mr. Yusuf Ansari in the past,” it said in a statement.

====

Muslim Paper Takes up Hindu Cause, Furthers Oneness

Don't kill cows and don't eat beef - that's the message of harmony a Muslim editor in Uttar Pradesh has been sending out to the community since 1998 when he began a newspaper to bridge divides in the communally sensitive state.

The Daastaan-e-Awadh, which used to be in Urdu but is now in Hindi to reach to more readers, is relentlessly pursuing its tagline of being 'a messenger of communal harmony, democratic and secular values'.

The six-page weekly newspaper published from Lucknow has been carrying in virtually every issue articles calling upon Muslims to join hands against the slaughter of cows that are revered by Hindus and associated with Lord Krishna.

And the man behind it is 49-year-old Abdul Waheed.

"From news reports pertaining to politics, business, sports and other fields, we do ensure to carry at least a write-up on the importance of cows in an edition. In such articles, we appeal to Muslims not to get directly or indirectly involved in killing of cows that are considered sacred in Hinduism," the Daastaan-e-Awadh editor told IANS.

"In our articles, we also condemn killing of cows and even term it anti-Islamic by referring to the basic teaching of Islam that says no one has the right to disrespect religious sentiments of anyone...

"In fact, in the write-ups, Muslims are also reminded about their task to protect sacred entities of different religions," Waheed added.

This is a campaign that the newspaper began in 1998 itself when it was launched. It has continued it since.

In the latest edition, for instance, Waheed, the author of most of the pieces on the issue, has written on how there was a ban on cow slaughter in the Mughal era.

"Several Mughal emperors, besides Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan, had made cow slaughter and beef eating an offence...The emperors did that for communal harmony," said Waheed.

"Despite a ban on sale of beef in many states of the country, I really feel ashamed when I come across news reports pertaining to those caught by police for killing cows in Uttar Pradesh, where cow slaughter has been banned since 1955. I remember that on several occasions, recovery of cow meat has led to communal tension in various parts of the state," he added.

Interestingly, Waheed launched Daastaan-e-Awadh as an Urdu weekly but later transformed it into Hindi as he wanted to cater to a large number of readers.

"When the newspaper was published in Urdu, we had a limited number of readership, which in turn was preventing us from reaching those Muslims, particularly those of younger generation, who are not well-versed in Urdu," said Waheed.

"It was in 2001 that we decided to bring the newspaper in Hindi with the objective of reaching out to more and more people," he recalled.

Asked what prompted him to launch such a newspaper, Waheed replied, "As a journalist I always wanted to use my writing skills for bridging the Hindu-Muslim divide. It was that desire that prompted me to launch the weekly that besides providing the news could also bring the members of the two communities closer."

Run by over 20 Muslim employees, Daastaan-e-Awadh that was earlier circulated only in Lucknow now has 10,000 readers in 14 districts of Uttar Pradesh, including Ghaziabad, Bareilly, Faizabad, Azamgarh, Agra and Shahjahanpur.

Prayagraj High Court's verdict - Shri Ram Mandir existed in Holy city Ayodhya

Delhi's Jama Masjid Imam Syed Bukhari who is known Islamic terrorist supporter & Anti-Hindu bigot, like Muslim apologist Digvijay Singh, attacked a Muslim journalist who merely asked a question about Hindus legitimate claim on Ayodhya & Shri Ram Janambhoomi. Very unbecoming of a so-called mass leader of section of Indians. And fake secularists wants Hindus to make peace with such Anti-Hindu bigots who can't even stand a mere query. Shame! Religion of Peace indeed.



Official website of Prayagraj High Court's verdict on Holy city Ayodhya





HAS THE COUNTRY MOVED ON? By Voxindica

Division will escalate dispute. By S Gurumurthy

A perverse discourse: Steeped in ignorance, pseudo-secularists are busy doing what they do best, Deliberately misinterpreting the Ayodhya judgement. By A Surya Prakash

Eminent historian displeased with the Ayodhya verdict. By Koenraad Elst

How Allahabad HC exposed 'experts' espousing Masjid cause By Abhinav Garg, Times of India

The role played by "independent experts" — historians and archaeologists who appeared on behalf of the Waqf Board to support its claim — has come in for criticism by one of the Allahabad High Court judges in the Ayodhya verdict.

While the special bench of three judges unanimously dismissed objections raised by the experts to the presence of a temple, it was Justice Sudhir Agarwal who put their claims to extended judicial scrutiny.

Most of these experts deposed twice. Before the ASI excavations, they said there was no temple beneath the mosque and, after the site had been dug up, they claimed what was unearthed was a mosque or a stupa. During lengthy cross-examination spread over several pages and recorded by Justice Agarwal, the historians and experts were subjected to pointed queries about their expertise, background and basis for their opinions.

To the court's astonishment, some who had written signed articles and issued pamphlets, found themselves withering under scrutiny and the judge said they were displaying an "ostrich-like attitude" to facts.

He also pointed out how the independent witnesses were all connected — one had done a PhD under the other, another had contributed an article to a book penned by a witness.

Some instances underlined by the judge are: Suvira Jaiswal deposed "whatever knowledge I gained with respect
to disputed site is based on newspaper reports or what others told" (other experts). She said she prepared a report on the Babri dispute "after reading newspaper reports and on basis of discussions with medieval history expert in my department." Supriya Verma, another expert who challenged the ASI excavations, had not
read the ground penetration radar survey report that led the court to order an excavation. She did her PhD under another expert Shireen F Ratnagar.

Verma and Jaya Menon alleged that pillar bases at the excavated site had been planted but HC found they were not present at the time the actual excavation took place.

Archaeologist Shereen F Ratnagar has written the "introduction" to the book of another expert who deposed, Professor Mandal. She admitted she had no field experience.

"Normally, courts do not make adverse comments on the deposition of a witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not, but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements..." the judge has noted.

He said opinions had been offered without making a proper investigation, research or study in the subject. The judge said he was "startled and puzzled" by contradictory statements. When expert witness Suraj Bhan deposed on the Babri mosque, the weight of his evidence was contradicted by anotherexpert for Muslim parties, Shirin Musavi, who told the court that Bhan "is an archaeologist and not an expert on medieval history".

Justice Agarwal referred to signed statements issued by experts and noted that "instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tends to create more complications, conflict and controversy." He pointed out that experts carry weight with public opinion. "One cannot say that though I had made a statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not based on my study or research but what I have learnt from what others have uttered," Justice Aggarwal has said, emphasising the need for thorough original research before concurring with what someone else has claimed.

Fundamentals of Sri Ram temple

True and devout Hindus believe Lord Sri Rama was born in Ayodhya, the then capital of a flourishing kingdom of the Suryavamsa dynasty. Rama is venerated as Maryada Purushottam, and worshipped by Hindus of the north. As an avatar of Vishnu, he was first propagated by Tamil saints Nayanmars and Alwars; the north later came to accept Rama, especially thanks to the saint Tulsidas. In that sense, Sri Rama was the first truly national king of India, supra region, supra varna or jati.

The exact spot where Rama was born has been and remains firmly identified in the Hindu mind and is held as sacred. This is the very area where stood from 1528 till December 6, 1992, a structure that came to be known as Babri Masjid, put up in 1528 by Babar’s commander Mir Baqi.

Baqi was a Shia Muslim, and hence he intended it to be a place for Shias to perform namaz. Today, interestingly, the Shia clerics have made it clear to Hindu organisations that they would agree to have the site restored as a Ramjanmabhoomi. It is the Sunni Waqf Board, which entered the legal dispute as late as 1961, that has been claiming the title to the land on which the structure once stood. I call it a ‘structure’ since it cannot be strictly called a mosque by Sunni edicts — because it did not have the mandatory minarets and wazu (water pool).

In Skanda Purana (Chapter X, Vaishnav Khand) the site is vividly described. Valmiki Ramayana also describes it beautifully. Less than two decades before Mir Baqi carried out the horrible demolition of the Ram temple, Guru Nanak had visited the Ramjanmabhoomi and had darshan of Ramlala in the mandir at the spot. Guru Nanak himself records in 1521 the barbarity of Babar’s invasions (in Guru Granth Sahib at p.418). In Akbar’s time, Abul Fazal wrote the Ain-i-Akbari in which he describes Ayodhya as the place of “Ram Chandra’s residence who in Treta Yuga combined spiritual supremacy and kingship” (Translated by Colonel H S Jarrett and published in Kolkata in 1891).

In Chapter X of the Report of the Archeological Survey of India, NW, and Oudh (1889) it is mentioned (p.67) that Babri Mosque ‘was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very spot where the old temple of Janmasthan of Ram Chandra was standing’.

It is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings. In 1885, for example, Mahant Raghubar Das in a Suit No 61/280 of 1885 filed in the court of the Faizabad sub-judge against the secretary of state for India (who was based in London), prayed for permission to build a temple on the chabutra outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March 18, 1886.

However, in his order, the sub-judge, an Englishman, stated: “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.”

It is well-established by GPRS-directed excavations done under the Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below where Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions found during excavations describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari who had killed the demon king Dasanan (Ravana).

The Sunni Waqf Board does not accept these findings. It does not however matter if all this was indeed so or not, since under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) it is prescribed that ‘Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both’.

That is, an offence under criminal law is committed if a body of persons hold something as sacred. It does not matter if the majority does or does not hold so. Nor can a court decide what is sacred and what is not. The offence under Section 295 IPC is cognisable and non-bailable, as well as non-compoundable. The fundamental question before us is: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on par as far as sacredness is concerned? Relying on two important court judgments that hold the field today, the answer is ‘no’. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

In the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case (reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376), the Supreme Court had observed: ‘It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah…and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered’. (para 80).

The Constitution Bench rebutted this contention. The Bench stated: ‘The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammed law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession…A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India’. (para 82).

Thus what was wrong in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence. Otherwise any government depriving the Muslims of the Babri Masjid is within law, if the government decides to do so in the interest of public order, public health and morality (Article 25 of the Constitution). This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosque to lay roads. Even the mosque where Islam’s Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished for a road to pass through!

When I was Union law and justice minister, the question of the status of a temple — even if in ruins or without worship — had come up before me in November 1990 in a case of a smuggled out bronze Nataraja statue which was up for sale in London.

The Government of India, when Rajiv Gandhi was PM, decided to file a case in the London trial court in 1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then been traced to a temple in ruins in Pathur, Thanjavur district. A farmer named Ramamoorthi had unearthed it in 1976 while digging mud with a spade near his hut.

When the news spread, touts of an antique dealer paid a small sum and smuggled it out to London, where in 1982 they sold it to Bumper Development Corporation Private Limited. The corporation sent it to the British Museum for possible purchase. By then the Government of India asked the UK government to take action.

The Nataraja idol was seized by London Metropolitan Police, and thus the corporation sued the police in court for recovery but lost the case. An appeal was filed in the Queens Bench which was dismissed on April 17, 1989. The Bumper Corporation went to the House of Lords. On February 13, 1991 when I was law minister, the judgment came dismissing Bumper’s final appeal (see (1991) 4 All ER 638).

The UK apex court upheld the Indian government’s position that because of the prana prathista puja a temple is owned by the deity, in this case Lord Shiva, and any Hindu can litigate on behalf of the deity as a de facto trustee. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse and Leggatt concluded: “We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja.” (page 648 para g).

Even if a temple is in ruins as the ASI had found, or destroyed as Ram temple was, any Hindu can sue on behalf of Lord Rama in court for recovery! No such ruling exists for a mosque. That is, the Ram temple on Ramjanmabhoomi has a superior claim to the site than any mosque. This the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute. This truth will apply to Kashi Vishvanath and Brindavan temple sites as well.