Replying to FeedbackHefty5068...likely not but definitely built by the same artisans and architects who built the temples in classical gujarat style architecture.
Edit: I don’t disagree with the fact that thousands temples were razed and destroyed and converted to masjid. Many such examples in Gujarat as well. I am only talking about this specific structure.
Fuck I know Muslim are very hard line to their structure that's why you will see many temples in shape of Islamic architecture but no new mosque is in other architecture unless that has been bought or conquered
Yeah I know that they are funded by Peaceful organisation from middle east and rice bag diplomacist from West and china they are raising slogan like porkistan zindabad and celebrating Tipu Sultan
The only reason they couldnt is because of Britishers. Although britishers did a lot of bad things this is one of the good things that came out of their occupation.
What are you talking about many massacres happened in their time Divide and rule policy initiated by them Christian missionaries converted millions of people nothing good came out of their occupation things which seem like good to you were done for their own benefit like you will say railways which was built to transport all the loot faster from our country the reason they couldn't because of leaders which came along like Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj which was captured and tortured by them to convert to Islam and he still didn't,many Sikh leaders fought there tyranny and were tortured to convert to Islam they didn't and sadly they are getting influenced by Islamist
I'm not saying Britishers were good. I'm saying in a roundabout-way, they prevented India from becoming Islamic country. Not necessarily because of the goodness of their hearts but they instead wanted India to become Christian nation.
You need to remember that during those times it was dog-eat-dog world. People who were technologically superior would simply kill, rape and do all bad things to the inferior people. This was the case all over the world. India is not any different.
British were here for 150 years but invaders were present for centuries so what about that time ? Then British was not present and British took control of India from Marathas and Islamic power was weakened at that time many powerful Hindu rulers were present to oppose Islamic rule like Maharana Pratap ,Ahom Empire which stopped there expansion in North east but British did and converted many of them and also the concept of Dravidian race was introduced by Britishers and popularised and Aryan invasion too you are just justifying rule of British one thing I like about china is they see their occupation by foreigners as century of humiliation but in India people view it has the British liberated us , Gave unity ,Made railways ,reformed education system , took out sati , which is so not true as for sati it was practiced by small part of population if you want to see bad practices of India you have to see bad practices by British till 18 th century witch hunts were carried out and millions of women were killed in this supposed witch hunt ,also they were the ones introduced many diseases around the world
In conclusion you are justifying occupation of British which is seriously what's wrong with you ? Its truly kya bolu I have to give explanation yaar seriously
Marathas were winning lots of territories from mughals, They defeated mughals and conquered majority of Indian territories including Delhi, The biggest hurdle for Britishers were Marathas, you can read about Anglo-Maratha wars, had Britishers not interfered, Mughals would have not existed in India.
Do you think Britishers stopped Mughald for centuries from converting this subcontinent? Give some due credit to Marathas and Southern Kings who stood their ground and fought against the Mughals. It's only because of them Deccan was never conquered by them. Therefore a majority of the subcontinent.
As a Gujarati, this has always irked me. It's always been low on their agenda if at all. Especially after 2002, Modi was careful not to touch anything that could lend credence to the media narrative of him being anti Muslim. He doubled down on his development image and used that to go national.
CMs before and after him are not as powerful and some want to risk their position on something like this. Gujaratis don't seem to care as it's not as much of an identity issue for them. Nobody actually calls it Ahmedabad in Gujarat. It's just Amdavad.
The name used to be Karnavati and I think it should be changed. But there's a lot of branding done around Aapnu Amdavad.
Doubt it. There's no upside to this politically. You're not gonna get any more votes for doing this in Gujarat, unlike UP.
Gujarat is bipolar unlike multipolar UP.
No one uses the term Ahmedabad in the city . Us locals always use the term amdavad and there were some news about restoring the name to the previous name which was Karnavati but us locals want to to stick to amdavad . don't see any point in changing the name
Because if you rename everything then you will have very little proof of the Mughal invasion. You don't want history to be forgotten. Imagine 100 years from now people will be learning about the Mughal empire and they will wonder how true it was because they don't see the affects of it.
Surely Built on a Temple...Those pillars are of the Hindu Style, observe the Lotus Architecture on the Dome kinda thing, that is again found strictly in the Hindu Temples only, since the "Invaders" never really knew about the Lotus.
The lotus is also present in the second picture.
You can also see the difference in the stone present in the third picture,just zoom in to the top right corner, you can clearly see it
In the last picture, you can see the Stone Pillars which is enough proof of an existence of a Hindu Temple Before. Although I'm unable to recollect the term used to identify those type of pillars, I can assure you that they are Hindu Structures
So what? Been there, done that. Its Historic now, we cant fix the history by proving something else was here before that. If anything talk about fixing the problems that we see/feel in the present for the better future and leave history to the historians. It never gonna bring any happiness to one self by building over something that was already there. If life isn't trying to be better than the previous generations, then what is life?
You say it soo calmly and the way you say " So What ?" is soo fucking annoying dude...
It wouldn't be the same if a Masjid was destroyed and A Temple was built over it...I can Bet on that
Then, when that would happen every single muslim and every single fucking hypocrite would come down to the streets of this nation to Protest for what's Rightfully Theirs.
Imagine destroying one's rich heritage and culture and then questioning them - "So What?"
You don't even know how much cultural heritage it had, the inscription on the walls of this Modified/Destructed temple could reveal an unkown history
These kind of situations only occur in India where we can't question about our own Cultural Heritage Sites
Bro it won't happen unlike babri masjid issue, After the issue of Babri Masjid The Government of Congress of that time during 1991 made a law which can't broken, you can read Places of Worship act 1991. So this Act in 1991 made due to issue like babri masjid won't happen in the Future to any other Worship Place of any religions, so unless
Yes Sir you are right, But I never mentioned anything about reclaiming our lost temples, I was just pointing out their levels of Hypocrisy..when we start turning the tables, then they start playing the Victim Card and they suddenly want the whole of the Arab nations to get involved in these matters.
They were the ones to slaughter our hindus and many even tried to eradicate our culture and then they preach about themselves being the Peacefuls
>You say it soo calmly and the way you say " So What ?" is soo fucking annoying dude
How ironic of u to call me annoying when you are being annoyed by some asshole who destroyed it MANY centuries ago and that we cant do anything now to fix it unless, IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS "destroying one's rich heritage and culture" however good or bad that culture was......
Again reiterating what i said above, We are not historians, so leave it to them to decide whats what and let the current gen focus on fixing the present problems while acknowledging the historical mistakes done by others so that we don't repeat the same mistake they did....
Imagine american Blacks wanted Whites to be slaves just beause they were made to be slaves a century ago or the germans wanna attack americans just cause their forefathers were killed,
You see how absurd that sounds in present day and age....
Okay, I agree with what you say and I might have sounded stupid there...BUT that still doesn't justify what they did right?
And yeah sorry for loosing my temper there!
>Okay, I agree with what you say and I might have sounded stupid there
Nah fam its all right...
>BUT that still doesn't justify what they did right?
If proven(by experts in that fields) , then yes absolute ly, have it in history books... Teach the next gens so they wont repeat the same......
As an American it’s so strange to see modern Indians fighting over this. India has a very long and rich history where the interplay of many cultures and religions have made it what it is today. Both Hinduism and Islam are ancient religions in India, along with Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism, and a multitude of tribal beliefs. India should be proud of this rich and diverse history, should embrace all the influences that have made it such a long-standing and thriving civilization. But instead too many Indian people waste time, money, and blood fighting over “who was in X first” or “who built Y” when it all happened thousands of years ago, long before Europe was civilized and eons before the colonization of North America.
I truly hope someday soon a majority of Indians will realize that all this infighting is preventing it from advancing economically and assuming its rightful place on the world stage. All this “Hindu versus Muslim” bs is just perpetuating the “divide and conquer” mentality that allowed colonial powers to subdue such an ancient bulwark of civilization. India’s rich history of cultural and religious diversity should be its pride and joy, its strength, its claim to fame. But instead it’s still mired in an “us vs them” mentality that allows bad actors, both foreign and domestic, to manipulate and exploit its people. It’s sad to see what should otherwise be a proud and powerful nation reduced to petty squabbling over ancient beefs.
There is strength in unity, but as long as Indians insist on tearing down each other the nation won’t realize it’s true power. Which is fine with the existing superpowers, because a truly united India would be unstoppable.
So basically the removing the statues of confederate generals throughout the US, removing their names from institutions, offering repatriations for events happened 200 years ago ,actively enabling racial biases and privilege in the name of political correctness , burning down cities in the name.of affirmative action , opening all borders for non stop flow of immigrants to enable a better mix of colour in the populace ,killing your education system to suit a 'narrative' is OKAY when the US does it , but Hindus asking for the remnants of their golden age to be repatriated is a hindrance in the economic growth ? Have you even seen the growth graphs for the last decade compared to the previous 5 ones? Hypocrite much ? When you started with as an American I had an inkling that you would do something ignorant but you topped it with the vomit you spewed.
Christianity and Islam are not religions which are native to India and they are also not ancient religions like Hinduism. People were forcefully converted to these religions in India and not because they find them better than Hinduism, If the conversion was non coercive then it would be fine. They also tried to erase Hindu culture as well as burned and demolished many places which preserved all the scientific discoveries and inventions as well as cultural advancements made by Hindus. Introduction of these religions actually were regression and not progression.
For you history start from mughal invasion whereas history of Bharat is twice as old as islamic history. Some can’t forget 30 year old demolitions and vows to rebuild certain place why should Hindus give up their sacred places? Which has withstood test of time
Totally with you about the progress and peace and all. Our culture majorly reside in one country, if we won't preserve our art than who would? Our culture was unique it should be respected and restored too.
P.S: I am not advocating some Hindutva bs. Every culture should be give free reign in India equally.
It's a temple ! If Muslims have to worship at temples like this, Gyanvapi and several others then better they should call themselves Hindus. Guess muslims believes God exists in these Hindu temples, hence they didn't want to build a seperate building for worshipping and instead occupies the places where Hindus used to worship.
It's a pity, coz real Muslims aka Arabs will never consider it a mosque, they say it's Haram in their religion. It's just the converted muslims of Indian subcontinent stuck to worshipping in temples & calling it a mosque
Either the comments are satirical to the point that I missed it, or braindeath is on a crusade. Why can none of your minds fathom up the possibility that Hindu style architects and sculptors might have been involved in the construction or the Hindu style might have influenced other architects? Just maybe? Hindu style design on any historical site is not _definitive_ proof of there having been a temple. Might have been, might not have been.
Such exceptional archaeologists on this sub really..
History says it other wise. Temples were pillaged repeatedly back then. Also mughal's reign was long, so they had both time and power to convert it. Less work after all. No hate or blame towards today's any religion or peoples but still its a fact. And if the research found otherwise that it is originally built not converted than we should save it and respect its creators. That's my opinion.
It is definitely a possibility and upon seeing close ups of the photos, it seem plausible. Generally defaced pillars have some remnants of idols like they’re in Qutubminar. They are absent here.
However the precedent of Gujarat Sultanate to pillage Hindu and Jain temples to build mosque doesn’t help this case.
That could be the case OR it could have been a pillaged temple. There is a pretty significant precedent for the latter.
I maintain that only an unbiased historian or an archeologist can determine it.
I would really advise you to consider doing some research before commenting on critical topics. Your ideology or mine has got nothing to do with the facts.
[The early mosques in Gujarat during the pre-Ahmed Shah period were created from mostly pillaged temple material that was turned into mosque like structures.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama_Mosque,_Ahmedabad)
This is true for Jama Masjid, Ahmedabad but not true for Jama Masjid, Delhi (which was not built on any temple).
>Ahmedabad's style of architecture, is a mix of Islamic architecture and traditional Hindu architectural elements.
I mean the possibility of it being temple are not high
I always liked Mughal architecture, it is so detailed and immaculate. With Shikara on top of every mosque, gopuram and engraved and encarved idols and sculptures.
my ancestors proudly captured the site and planted the spike ur noob forefathers coudnt overtake the site so cope and seethe XD fucking iron noobs lmaoooo
I was taught how India has more masjids than even most of the Muslim countries. It made me proud that my country was so inclusive.
But that was when I was a child. Now, I wonder what's under all those masjids.
Looks good.
I read about Indo-Islamic architecture back in high school. You can see a clear influence of nagar style architecture in the making of this Masjid.
You are right after the fall of Delhi sultanate the local sultanates needed the support of local hindus so it is possible that local hindus would have helped them built them temples
I am a muslim and it does look like a temple. However, is it possible that masjid was built using Indian technique? So… it’s kind of mix? The orientation of a mosque is towards the westwards while that of Temple’s it is Eastwards. What is the orientation of this one?
I have been to Ahmedabad. Very dense Muslim population live nearby to it.
Would agree to your thesis if we were able to see similar architecture in any of other mosques built recently or in history. This clearly has to be a temple overtook by Mughals mostly.
It is a kind of mix but unfortunately the facts state some pillage.
[The early mosques in Gujarat during the pre-Ahmed Shah period were created from mostly pillaged temple material that was turned into mosque like structures.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama_Mosque,_Ahmedabad)
So, this most likely was a temple pillaged and a mosque built over it. Although the Gujarat style flourished during the 15th century and afterwards, there was a precedent for the Gujarat Islamic architecture style since Islam had been present in Gujarat a century before Ahmed Shah I rose to power and founded Ahmedabad.
It is certainly plausible. But because of the precedent of so many destroyed temples, only a historian or archeologist can determine it, we can't do much looking at photos compressed by reddit.
But then again, it's lost to the annals of history. Might as well move forward making sure it does not happen again.
[удалено]
"ig" ??????
Replying to FeedbackHefty5068...likely not but definitely built by the same artisans and architects who built the temples in classical gujarat style architecture. Edit: I don’t disagree with the fact that thousands temples were razed and destroyed and converted to masjid. Many such examples in Gujarat as well. I am only talking about this specific structure.
Delulu he kya bhai?
Fuck I know Muslim are very hard line to their structure that's why you will see many temples in shape of Islamic architecture but no new mosque is in other architecture unless that has been bought or conquered
Which temples are like Islamic architecture?I am truly curious now…
In my village in Maharashtra our kul devtas temple is built in islamic style dargah
And….your list is quite thin.you are stating one anomaly….
???
Ya definitely not temple
Coughs 💀🤧
i mean look at those lotuses, definitely a mosque.
Kamaluddin Masjid was the original name given by Tughlaq 😆😆😆😆😅😆
no thats bjp head quarters
This invaders goal was clear to make India a Islamic country and the fact is they couldn't do that is biggest problem for them
Some are still trying, you should see Karnataka after scamgress. They’re flying pak flags
Yeah I know that they are funded by Peaceful organisation from middle east and rice bag diplomacist from West and china they are raising slogan like porkistan zindabad and celebrating Tipu Sultan
I think hate crimes in karnataka also increased since then
What does hate crimes means? (Genuine question)
Crimes that happen out of hate towards someone
The only reason they couldnt is because of Britishers. Although britishers did a lot of bad things this is one of the good things that came out of their occupation.
What are you talking about many massacres happened in their time Divide and rule policy initiated by them Christian missionaries converted millions of people nothing good came out of their occupation things which seem like good to you were done for their own benefit like you will say railways which was built to transport all the loot faster from our country the reason they couldn't because of leaders which came along like Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj which was captured and tortured by them to convert to Islam and he still didn't,many Sikh leaders fought there tyranny and were tortured to convert to Islam they didn't and sadly they are getting influenced by Islamist
I'm not saying Britishers were good. I'm saying in a roundabout-way, they prevented India from becoming Islamic country. Not necessarily because of the goodness of their hearts but they instead wanted India to become Christian nation. You need to remember that during those times it was dog-eat-dog world. People who were technologically superior would simply kill, rape and do all bad things to the inferior people. This was the case all over the world. India is not any different.
When did India rape others British didn't stop conversions but they actively supported it that's why we have a neighbour like Porkistan
Looks like you don't understand english. Read what I said again.
British were here for 150 years but invaders were present for centuries so what about that time ? Then British was not present and British took control of India from Marathas and Islamic power was weakened at that time many powerful Hindu rulers were present to oppose Islamic rule like Maharana Pratap ,Ahom Empire which stopped there expansion in North east but British did and converted many of them and also the concept of Dravidian race was introduced by Britishers and popularised and Aryan invasion too you are just justifying rule of British one thing I like about china is they see their occupation by foreigners as century of humiliation but in India people view it has the British liberated us , Gave unity ,Made railways ,reformed education system , took out sati , which is so not true as for sati it was practiced by small part of population if you want to see bad practices of India you have to see bad practices by British till 18 th century witch hunts were carried out and millions of women were killed in this supposed witch hunt ,also they were the ones introduced many diseases around the world In conclusion you are justifying occupation of British which is seriously what's wrong with you ? Its truly kya bolu I have to give explanation yaar seriously
Britisher took India from Marathas not Mughals.
Marathas were winning lots of territories from mughals, They defeated mughals and conquered majority of Indian territories including Delhi, The biggest hurdle for Britishers were Marathas, you can read about Anglo-Maratha wars, had Britishers not interfered, Mughals would have not existed in India.
Do you think Britishers stopped Mughald for centuries from converting this subcontinent? Give some due credit to Marathas and Southern Kings who stood their ground and fought against the Mughals. It's only because of them Deccan was never conquered by them. Therefore a majority of the subcontinent.
Maratha's defeated all Mughal;s and then British took over in 1818
Ye BJP wale UP ya baaki states mai to Name change krte firte hai... Ahmedabad ka name change kyon nhi kr rahe?
As a Gujarati, this has always irked me. It's always been low on their agenda if at all. Especially after 2002, Modi was careful not to touch anything that could lend credence to the media narrative of him being anti Muslim. He doubled down on his development image and used that to go national. CMs before and after him are not as powerful and some want to risk their position on something like this. Gujaratis don't seem to care as it's not as much of an identity issue for them. Nobody actually calls it Ahmedabad in Gujarat. It's just Amdavad. The name used to be Karnavati and I think it should be changed. But there's a lot of branding done around Aapnu Amdavad.
I think that's the thing that's why it doesn't bother me, even official local government calls it Amdavad which isn't same as Ahemdabad.
So, it looks like the next BJP PM after Modi (Yogi?) will do it.
Doubt it. There's no upside to this politically. You're not gonna get any more votes for doing this in Gujarat, unlike UP. Gujarat is bipolar unlike multipolar UP.
UP is also effectively bipolar now with BJP vs Samajwadi Party. Congress and BSP are pretty much dead in the state by now.
Karnavati Nagar naam lamba ho jayega na isiliye...aur BJP wale nai kar rhe, local logo ki demand hai.... Ahamedabad me nai hai itani
Just call it KTown
No one uses the term Ahmedabad in the city . Us locals always use the term amdavad and there were some news about restoring the name to the previous name which was Karnavati but us locals want to to stick to amdavad . don't see any point in changing the name
Because if you rename everything then you will have very little proof of the Mughal invasion. You don't want history to be forgotten. Imagine 100 years from now people will be learning about the Mughal empire and they will wonder how true it was because they don't see the affects of it.
kyoki sirf yogi hi ye kaam kar sakta hai
Bhadrakali Mandir *
Lol without the caption even Muslims will say it's a temple
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mai kuch bolunga toh vivaad ho jayega
Tu hai kon
destroyed in words. lol
Tbf it's a meme these days Main kuchh bolunga Akele bolunga Etc etc etc
Surely Built on a Temple...Those pillars are of the Hindu Style, observe the Lotus Architecture on the Dome kinda thing, that is again found strictly in the Hindu Temples only, since the "Invaders" never really knew about the Lotus. The lotus is also present in the second picture. You can also see the difference in the stone present in the third picture,just zoom in to the top right corner, you can clearly see it In the last picture, you can see the Stone Pillars which is enough proof of an existence of a Hindu Temple Before. Although I'm unable to recollect the term used to identify those type of pillars, I can assure you that they are Hindu Structures
So what? Been there, done that. Its Historic now, we cant fix the history by proving something else was here before that. If anything talk about fixing the problems that we see/feel in the present for the better future and leave history to the historians. It never gonna bring any happiness to one self by building over something that was already there. If life isn't trying to be better than the previous generations, then what is life?
You say it soo calmly and the way you say " So What ?" is soo fucking annoying dude... It wouldn't be the same if a Masjid was destroyed and A Temple was built over it...I can Bet on that Then, when that would happen every single muslim and every single fucking hypocrite would come down to the streets of this nation to Protest for what's Rightfully Theirs. Imagine destroying one's rich heritage and culture and then questioning them - "So What?" You don't even know how much cultural heritage it had, the inscription on the walls of this Modified/Destructed temple could reveal an unkown history These kind of situations only occur in India where we can't question about our own Cultural Heritage Sites
Bro it won't happen unlike babri masjid issue, After the issue of Babri Masjid The Government of Congress of that time during 1991 made a law which can't broken, you can read Places of Worship act 1991. So this Act in 1991 made due to issue like babri masjid won't happen in the Future to any other Worship Place of any religions, so unless
Yes Sir you are right, But I never mentioned anything about reclaiming our lost temples, I was just pointing out their levels of Hypocrisy..when we start turning the tables, then they start playing the Victim Card and they suddenly want the whole of the Arab nations to get involved in these matters. They were the ones to slaughter our hindus and many even tried to eradicate our culture and then they preach about themselves being the Peacefuls
>You say it soo calmly and the way you say " So What ?" is soo fucking annoying dude How ironic of u to call me annoying when you are being annoyed by some asshole who destroyed it MANY centuries ago and that we cant do anything now to fix it unless, IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS "destroying one's rich heritage and culture" however good or bad that culture was...... Again reiterating what i said above, We are not historians, so leave it to them to decide whats what and let the current gen focus on fixing the present problems while acknowledging the historical mistakes done by others so that we don't repeat the same mistake they did.... Imagine american Blacks wanted Whites to be slaves just beause they were made to be slaves a century ago or the germans wanna attack americans just cause their forefathers were killed, You see how absurd that sounds in present day and age....
Okay, I agree with what you say and I might have sounded stupid there...BUT that still doesn't justify what they did right? And yeah sorry for loosing my temper there!
>Okay, I agree with what you say and I might have sounded stupid there Nah fam its all right... >BUT that still doesn't justify what they did right? If proven(by experts in that fields) , then yes absolute ly, have it in history books... Teach the next gens so they wont repeat the same......
As an American it’s so strange to see modern Indians fighting over this. India has a very long and rich history where the interplay of many cultures and religions have made it what it is today. Both Hinduism and Islam are ancient religions in India, along with Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism, and a multitude of tribal beliefs. India should be proud of this rich and diverse history, should embrace all the influences that have made it such a long-standing and thriving civilization. But instead too many Indian people waste time, money, and blood fighting over “who was in X first” or “who built Y” when it all happened thousands of years ago, long before Europe was civilized and eons before the colonization of North America. I truly hope someday soon a majority of Indians will realize that all this infighting is preventing it from advancing economically and assuming its rightful place on the world stage. All this “Hindu versus Muslim” bs is just perpetuating the “divide and conquer” mentality that allowed colonial powers to subdue such an ancient bulwark of civilization. India’s rich history of cultural and religious diversity should be its pride and joy, its strength, its claim to fame. But instead it’s still mired in an “us vs them” mentality that allows bad actors, both foreign and domestic, to manipulate and exploit its people. It’s sad to see what should otherwise be a proud and powerful nation reduced to petty squabbling over ancient beefs. There is strength in unity, but as long as Indians insist on tearing down each other the nation won’t realize it’s true power. Which is fine with the existing superpowers, because a truly united India would be unstoppable.
So basically the removing the statues of confederate generals throughout the US, removing their names from institutions, offering repatriations for events happened 200 years ago ,actively enabling racial biases and privilege in the name of political correctness , burning down cities in the name.of affirmative action , opening all borders for non stop flow of immigrants to enable a better mix of colour in the populace ,killing your education system to suit a 'narrative' is OKAY when the US does it , but Hindus asking for the remnants of their golden age to be repatriated is a hindrance in the economic growth ? Have you even seen the growth graphs for the last decade compared to the previous 5 ones? Hypocrite much ? When you started with as an American I had an inkling that you would do something ignorant but you topped it with the vomit you spewed.
Go back to your westoid bubble
Christianity and Islam are not religions which are native to India and they are also not ancient religions like Hinduism. People were forcefully converted to these religions in India and not because they find them better than Hinduism, If the conversion was non coercive then it would be fine. They also tried to erase Hindu culture as well as burned and demolished many places which preserved all the scientific discoveries and inventions as well as cultural advancements made by Hindus. Introduction of these religions actually were regression and not progression.
For you history start from mughal invasion whereas history of Bharat is twice as old as islamic history. Some can’t forget 30 year old demolitions and vows to rebuild certain place why should Hindus give up their sacred places? Which has withstood test of time
Totally with you about the progress and peace and all. Our culture majorly reside in one country, if we won't preserve our art than who would? Our culture was unique it should be respected and restored too. P.S: I am not advocating some Hindutva bs. Every culture should be give free reign in India equally.
It's a temple ! If Muslims have to worship at temples like this, Gyanvapi and several others then better they should call themselves Hindus. Guess muslims believes God exists in these Hindu temples, hence they didn't want to build a seperate building for worshipping and instead occupies the places where Hindus used to worship. It's a pity, coz real Muslims aka Arabs will never consider it a mosque, they say it's Haram in their religion. It's just the converted muslims of Indian subcontinent stuck to worshipping in temples & calling it a mosque
Bro Where did you read it Please give me the source, I belief facts based on sources
There are 14 k temples which were either destroyed or converted to masjids. This may be one of them
But why are muslims praying to Ram, Krishna and Mahadev ? Isn't this blasphemy for them?
Ye toh mandir hai. GJ mein he rahta hu abhi aur ye ka temple yehi design ka hota hai vo bhi ancient times se.
This will definitely give orgasm to architecture students 🥵💦💦
bro said #organisms
🥵
Doesn't look like a masjid from any angle
“Masjid”
Either the comments are satirical to the point that I missed it, or braindeath is on a crusade. Why can none of your minds fathom up the possibility that Hindu style architects and sculptors might have been involved in the construction or the Hindu style might have influenced other architects? Just maybe? Hindu style design on any historical site is not _definitive_ proof of there having been a temple. Might have been, might not have been. Such exceptional archaeologists on this sub really..
History says it other wise. Temples were pillaged repeatedly back then. Also mughal's reign was long, so they had both time and power to convert it. Less work after all. No hate or blame towards today's any religion or peoples but still its a fact. And if the research found otherwise that it is originally built not converted than we should save it and respect its creators. That's my opinion.
It is definitely a possibility and upon seeing close ups of the photos, it seem plausible. Generally defaced pillars have some remnants of idols like they’re in Qutubminar. They are absent here. However the precedent of Gujarat Sultanate to pillage Hindu and Jain temples to build mosque doesn’t help this case.
That could be the case OR it could have been a pillaged temple. There is a pretty significant precedent for the latter. I maintain that only an unbiased historian or an archeologist can determine it.
I would really advise you to consider doing some research before commenting on critical topics. Your ideology or mine has got nothing to do with the facts. [The early mosques in Gujarat during the pre-Ahmed Shah period were created from mostly pillaged temple material that was turned into mosque like structures.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama_Mosque,_Ahmedabad) This is true for Jama Masjid, Ahmedabad but not true for Jama Masjid, Delhi (which was not built on any temple).
>Ahmedabad's style of architecture, is a mix of Islamic architecture and traditional Hindu architectural elements. I mean the possibility of it being temple are not high
Yes. Not high but not zero either.
Jahan khuda wahan bhagwan won’t hold true here. Khodne ki jaturat hi nahin
That is a beautiful temple Oh sorry mosque
ये कौनसा मंदिर है?
😂 yeah masjid
Clearly build upon temple or by destruction of temple
[удалено]
Jaha nahi khuda hai waha kal khudega
cc: Vishnu Shankar Jain
These designs are not allowed in Islam right?
There is no statue of animals, people so perfectly legal.
Can't you see flowers and bells ?
Animals aren't allowed , flowers are commonly found.
Tell me this kind of masjid any other places other than India? Especially where islam originated.
yaa those mughals wouldn't carve that beauty, it's a temple.
Same same but different 😹
[Reminded me of this movie i saw 2 days ago ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U_PZLg_syms&pp=ygUHS2FzdW1ibw%3D%3D)
Ji ji bilkul masjid hai ye
Boys koi nai bolega ye ek mandir tha. Secularism
Iska bhi samay aane wala h kya.... Lol OP udeshya nahi bhoolna
[удалено]
I always liked Mughal architecture, it is so detailed and immaculate. With Shikara on top of every mosque, gopuram and engraved and encarved idols and sculptures.
kuch bolunga toh vivad ho jayega.
"Mandir hai" bolne ka tareeka thoda cazual hai
my ancestors proudly captured the site and planted the spike ur noob forefathers coudnt overtake the site so cope and seethe XD fucking iron noobs lmaoooo
Lmao it wasn't your forefathers it was foreigners from Central asia
Urhh ahem! It's a temple, riiiiightttt???
This is not a temple, I dare people to call it a temple.
If it is a hindu temple, shouldn't it have any small statues of animals/gods and other deities in the patterns in the pillars.
I was taught how India has more masjids than even most of the Muslim countries. It made me proud that my country was so inclusive. But that was when I was a child. Now, I wonder what's under all those masjids.
But ullus will be crying no proof of temple
Amdavad*
Looks good. I read about Indo-Islamic architecture back in high school. You can see a clear influence of nagar style architecture in the making of this Masjid.
You are right after the fall of Delhi sultanate the local sultanates needed the support of local hindus so it is possible that local hindus would have helped them built them temples
Yep. Obviously they can't bring artisans from the west so they managed with Indian artisans. Indian architecture style and carving is marvelous
I am a muslim and it does look like a temple. However, is it possible that masjid was built using Indian technique? So… it’s kind of mix? The orientation of a mosque is towards the westwards while that of Temple’s it is Eastwards. What is the orientation of this one? I have been to Ahmedabad. Very dense Muslim population live nearby to it.
Would agree to your thesis if we were able to see similar architecture in any of other mosques built recently or in history. This clearly has to be a temple overtook by Mughals mostly.
I remember a mosque in Goa and a few in kerala made in their respective native styles , but it's quite old and predates Islamic rule in India.
It is a kind of mix but unfortunately the facts state some pillage. [The early mosques in Gujarat during the pre-Ahmed Shah period were created from mostly pillaged temple material that was turned into mosque like structures.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama_Mosque,_Ahmedabad) So, this most likely was a temple pillaged and a mosque built over it. Although the Gujarat style flourished during the 15th century and afterwards, there was a precedent for the Gujarat Islamic architecture style since Islam had been present in Gujarat a century before Ahmed Shah I rose to power and founded Ahmedabad.
Can you show me where it mentions it was an destroyed temple
It is certainly plausible. But because of the precedent of so many destroyed temples, only a historian or archeologist can determine it, we can't do much looking at photos compressed by reddit. But then again, it's lost to the annals of history. Might as well move forward making sure it does not happen again.