Ram Janmabhoomi (Hindi/Devanagiri: राम जन्मभूमि) is believed by many Hindus to be the "birthplace of Rama." Rama is a major figure in Indian mythology and the Hindu religion where he is described as an avatar of Lord Vishnu in Hinduism. The exact location of Rama's birth is not stated with any specific accuracy by the Hindu texts, but the term popularly refers to a tract of land in the North Indian city of Ayodhya.
Quotes about Ram JanmabhoomiEdit
17th century and earlierEdit
- One who visits Ayodhya the way enjoined sheds all one’s sins and finds one’s abode in the House of Hari (Hari-mandira). Likewise, ‘for one who takes bath in the Svargadvara and visits the Rama temple (Ramalaya) nothing remains to be done here and he has fulfilled his duty.
- Skanda Purana II, Vaisnava-khanda (2) Badarikasrama-Mahatmya (3) . I.24. (The Ayodhya-Mahatmya refers to Ramajanmasthana once, Janmasthana twice, and Janmabhumi twice. Paying a visit (pradarsana) to the same is said to be infinitely meritorious. Skanda Purana, Ayodhya-Mahatmya.) Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers. 
- "A man who has seen the Janmasthana will not be born again even if he does not offer gifts, practise asceticism, goes on pilgrimages or make sacrifice-offerings. A man observing the vow world be liberated from the bondage of rebirth on arrival of the Navami day because of the miraculous power of a bath and a gift. By seeing the Ramjanmabhoomi he shall obtain the result that accrues to one who gives away a thousand red cows day after day."
- Ayodhya-Mahatmya forming part of the Skandapurana in History versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91. Also available at 
- All sins of those persons, who after being purified on the Sarayū’s bank visit the Janma-bhūmi, are effaced, by its mere glimpse, for hundreds, thousands and crores of kalpas.
Having reached the temple of Rāma, men, who have his darśana (glimpse) or even his remembrance, are liberated from the charana-trayam i.e. birth, life and death.
By a darśana of the Janma-bhūmi or remembrance of the Rāma-nāma or bathing in the Sarayū river all sins are destroyed.
He, who remembers the sacred city of Ayodhyā, is blessed with wealth, reputation, long life, virtues and destruction of sins.
- Ayodhyā-māhātmya of Rudra-yāmala (Rudra-yāmala is mentioned in a manuscript of the Brahma-yāmala dated 1052 A.D.) (Quoted from the twelfth chapter of the Ayodhyā-māhātmya manuscript of the Rudra-yāmala, dated 1801 A.D. and preserved in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune) in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- Today is the ninth day of the bright fortnight of the Chaitra month, i.e. Rāmanavami. By the impact of the festival of the Rāmanavami, bathing in the Sarayu river, having a darśan of the idol of Lord Rāma and beholding the Janmabhūmi, all they went to the Sāntānaka Loka by planes.
Even Brahmā is not competent to describe the importance of the Janmabhūmi. On the ninth day of the Chaitra month if a man, bristling with millions of sins, visits the Janmabhūmi, he is liberated from all vices and goes to the Supreme World where there is no worry.
- Satyopākhyānam (Published by Venkateswar Press in 1882. Its one manuscript dated 1865 A.D. is available in the Pennsylvania University Library, which dates its composition to the 13th century A.D.) in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a small portion in prose, and is engraved in the chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stone (sila-samhati-grahais) and beautified with a golden spire (hiranya-kalasa-srisundaram) unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings (purvvair-apy-akrtam krtam nrpatibhir) was constructed. This wonderful temple (aty-adbhutam) was built in the temple-city (vibudh-alaayni) of Ayodhya situated in the Saketamandala (district, (...). Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali (apparently in the Vamana manifestation) and the ten-headed personage (Dasanana, i.e., Ravana). Line 20 contains an allusion to the serious threat from the west, apparently posed by Sultan Subuktigin and his son Mahmud of Gahni, and its destruction by the king.
- About the Vishnu Hari inscription found at the Babri masjid site. Ajay Mitra Shastri, Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), cited in S.P. Gupta: If Only the Court had Examined the Evidence in: India., & Dasgupta, S. (1995). The Ayodhya reference: The Supreme Court judgement and commentaries.
- The inscription is not in any way dated, but may be assigennd, with confidence, to the middle of the 12th century... The most important internal historical information we get from this epigraph is the mention of Govindachandra..... verse 21 gives the important information that, in order to ensure his easy passage into the heavens, Meghasuta built a lofty stone temple for the Gode Visnu-Hari.. verse 28 refers to a king (probaly Ayusyacandra) as warding off the danger of invasion from the west...
Lines 13-14, verse 19. His nephew (literally brother's son), the widely, celebrated Meghasuta, the illustrious one, who superseded Anayacandra; he earned the lordship of Saketa-mandala through the grace of his elder, the lord of the earth, Govindacandra.
Lines 14-15, verse 21. By him, who was meditating in his mind on the easiest means of quickly jumping across the ocean of worldly attachments, was erected this beautiful temple of [The god] Visu-Hari, [on a scale] never before done by the preceding kings, compactly formed [i.e., built] with rows of large and lofty stones which had been sculpted out.
Lines 15-16, verse 22. ... king Govindacandra's empire, .... his younger (son?) Ayusyacandra.
Line 17, verse 24. By him, who was of good conduct, and abhorred strife, while residng at Ayodhya, which had towering abodes, intellectuals and temples, Saketa-Mandala was endowed with thousands of wells, reservoirs, alms-houses, tanks.
Lines 18-19, verse 27. Separating [the flesh and blood of the demon] Hiranyakasipu from his skeleton,....and performing many valorous deeds, having killed the Ten-headed [demon Ravana],...
- Vishnu Hari inscription. Translated by K.V. Ramesh, Appendix II in Lal, B. B. (2008). Rāma, his historicity, mandir, and setu: Evidence of literature, archaeology, and other sciences. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. p. 81 ff.
- Here are also the ruins of Ranichand[s] castle and houses, which the Indians acknowledge for the great God, saying that he took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world.
- [The Ram Janmabhoomi] secures heaven for whomever pays a visit to it.
- “..thence (from Lucknow) to Oudee (an ancient city, once the seat of Pathan Kings, but now almost deserted), 50 cos. Not far from this city may be seen the ruins of the fort and palace of Ramchand, whom the Indians regard as God Most High: they say that he took on him human flesh that he might see the great tamasha of the world. Amongst these ruins live certain Bramenes who carefully note down the name of all such pilgrims as duly perform their ceremonial ablutions in the neighboring river. They say that this custom has been kept up for many centuries. About two miles from these rivers (sic.) is a cave with a narrow mouth but so spacious within and with so many ramifications that it is difficult to find one’s way out again. They believe that the ashes of the god are hidden here. Pilgrims come to this place from all parts of India and after worshipping the idol take away with them some grains of charred rice as proof of their visit. This rice they believe to have been kept here for many centuries.” (pp. 64-65)
- Joannes De Laet (1631)‘De Imperio Magni Mogolis Sive India Vera Commentarius’ English translation by John S. Hoyland, 1927. quoted in in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited. and in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- “At this Oudee or Oujea (a citty in Bengala & felicitated by Ganges) are many Antick Monuments, especially memorable is the pretty old castle Ranichand built by a Bannyan Pagod of that name about 994500 yeares ago after their accompt, from which to this the Bannyans have repayred to offer here and to wash away their sinnes in Ganges, each of which is recorded by name by the laborious Bramyns who acquaintes this Pagod with their good progressions and charitable offerings.” (p. 92)
“Ducerat, who begat Ram, a King so famous for piety and high attempts, that to this day his name is exceedingly honoured, so that when they say Ram Rame, 'tis as if they should say, all good betide you”. (p. 47)
- Thomas Herbert (1634) “Some Yeares Travels into Divers Parts of Asia and Afrique” , quoted in in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited. and in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- A spot particularly famous is known as Sita Rassoi, i.e. table of Sita, Rama's wife... Emperor Aurangzeb demolished the fortress called Ramcot, and erected on the same place a Mohammedan temple with three cupolas. Others say that it was constructed by Babor... Fourteen pilllars of black stone.. are located in the fortress.. The other two (pillars) are in the tomb of an unknown Maure (Muslim)... On the left one can see a square box... Hindus call it Bedi (i.e. the cradle) because formerly it was the house where Beschan (Vishnu) and his three brothers were born under the form of Ram... Subsequently Aurangzeb and some say Babar destroyed the place in order to prevent the heathens from practising their ceremonies. However, they have continued to practice their religious ceremonies in both the places knowing this to have been the birth place of Rama by going around it three times and prostrating on the ground.. On 24th of Chaitrra a large number of people gather here to celebrate the birth of Rama extremely popular throughout India...
- Joseph Tiefenthaler, History and Geography of India, Cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 8185504164, also in Peter Van der Veer Religious Nationalism, also in R.S. Sharma et al.: Historians' Report to the Nation, People's Publ., Delhi 1991., and in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- Oudh is an ancient city... It is the birthplace of Raja Ramachandra, who was one of the ten avataras, that is, a perfect manifestation of God. Sita was married to him.
- [A letter dated 1735 by a Faizabad qazi (judge) describes Hindu-Muslim riots in Ayodhya over] “the Masjid built by the emperor of Delhi”.
- Quoted from Elst Koenraad: Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002)
- In the very heart of the city stands the Janam Asthan, or 'Birth-place temple' of Rama"
- Alexander Cunningham I 1871: 322. Four reports, ASI. in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- “Avad, also known as Aoude and Oude in our country (France), and the learned Indians name it Adjudea, is one of the most ancient cities, situated on the banks of the river Ghaghra and we consider that the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu happened in this city, in the form of Ramji, whose father was the King of Avadh. The Indians come here from far off places on a big pilgrimage.
- In those days at Ayodhya there was an edifice called the Celestial Temple, from where it is said that Ram or Ramji had taken to the heaven all the inhabitants of the city. This temple and several others were destroyed by the order of Aurang-zeb as he considered that these used to serve the purposes of a superstitious religion (cult).”
- C. Mentelle (1801 A.D.) “Courses of Cosmography (Cosmology), on Geography, on Chronology and on Ancient and Modern History’” in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- “Oude, a town of Hindostan, in the above prov. and kingdom of which it was the former cap; on the Gogra across which an iron bridge, the materials having been brought from England is said to have been recently thrown 74 mile E. Lucknow; Lat. 26º48’ N. Long. 82º4’ E. It extends a considerable distance along the banks of the river, stretching as far as Fyzabad. It is said by Hamilton to be tolerably populous; but except along the river’s brink, it consists wholly of ruins and jungle, among which are the remains of various celebrated Hindoo temples. Hindoo pilgrims still visit Oude; and did so in great numbers, until Aurangzebe demolished most of their places of resort. A mosque erected by that monarch, and 2 tombs, greatly venerated by mohammedans are now the principal and almost sole remaining public edifices. (Mod.Trav. ix, 312-315)”
- A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical and Historical, Vol. 2. This Universal Gazetteer was written by J.R. M’Culloch, ESQ, and published from London in 1842. quoted in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya... is ascertained by an inscription on its walls... to have been built by Babur (...) The only thing except these two figures and the bricks, that could with probability be traced to the ancient city, are some pillars in the mosque built by Babur, These are of black stone, and of an order which I have seen nowhere else, and which will be understood from the accompanying drawing. That they have been taken from a Hindu building, is evident, from the traces of images being observable on some of their bases; although the images have been cut off to satisfy the conscience of the bigot.
- Montgomery, Martin, The history, antiquities, topography, and statistics of eastern India 1838,  Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers. , and in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- [According to tradition] Vikramaditya, king of Oojein, half a century before the Christian era, and by him [Ayodhya was] embellished with 360 temples. Not the smallest traces of these temples, however, now remain and according to native tradition, they were demolished by Aurangzeb, who built a mosque on part of the site. The falsehood of the tradition is, however, proved by an inscription on the wall of the mosque, attributing the work to the conqueror Babur, from whom Aurangzeb was fifth in descent. The mosque is embellished with fourteen columns of only five or six feet in height, but of very elaborate and tasteful workmanship, said to have been taken from the ruins of the Hindoo fanes.... A quadrangular coffer of stone, whitewashed, five ells long, four broad, and protruding five or six inches above ground, is pointed out as the cradle in which Rama was born as the seventh avatar of Vishnu; and is accordingly abundantly honoured by the pilgrimages and devotions of the Hindoos.
- Edward Thornton, A Gazetteer of the Territories Under the Government of the East India Company,  Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers. , and in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- A fine temple in the Janmasthan; for many of its columns arc still in existence and in good preservation, having been used by the Musalmans in the construction of the Babari Mosque. ... The Janmasthan is within a few hundred paces of the Hanuman Garhi. In 1855 when a great rupture took place between the Hindus and Mahomedans the former occupied the Hanuman Garhi in force, while the Musalmans took possession of the Janmasthana. The Mahomedans on that occasion actually charged up the steps of the Hanuman Garhi, but were driven back with considerable loss. The Hindus then followed up this success, and at the third attempt, took the Janmasthan, at the gate of which 75 Mahomedans are buried in the “Martyrs’ grave” (Ganj-Shahid). Several of the King’s Regiments were looking on all the time, but their orders were not to interfere ... It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.
- P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870,  cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 p.8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer Religious Nationalism, p.153, and in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- It is locally affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there were' three important Hindu shrines ... at Ayodhya. These were the Janmasthan, the Sargadwar Mandir and the Treta- ka-Thakur. On the first of these Babar built the mosque which still bears his name ... On the second, Aurangzeb did the same ... and on the third that sovereign, or his predecessor, built a mosque, according to the well-known Mahomedan principle of enforcing their religion on all whom they conquered
- (Camegy 1870: 20-21). P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- At one corner of a vast mound known as Ramkot, or the fort of Rama, is the holy spot where the hero was born. Most of the enclosure is occupied by a mosque built by Babar from the remains of an old temple, and in the outer portion a small platform and shrine mark the birth place.
- [According to Balfour, Ayodhya has] ‘three mosques on the sites of three Hindu shrines: the Janmasthan on the site where Rama was born…..’
- From old records and the tradition it is gathered... Wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins, teachers, and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs.... And this to such an extent that all over Hindustan no trace of infidelity was left besides Islam and no practice of idol-worship survived besides worship of God. And the few Hindus who remained safe from the hands of the Muslims became the slaves of Islam, began to pay kharaj, became subdued... In short, even as the Muslim rulers cleared up Mathura, Banares etc from the dust and dross of infidelity ... Likewise, they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too, from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father. Here they broke the temples and left no stone-hearted idol intact. Where there stood the great temple (of Ramjanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, and, where there was a small mandap (pavilion), there they erected a camp mosque (masjid-i mukhtasar-i qanati). The Janmasthan temple is the principal place of Rama’s incarnation, adjacent to which is the Sita ki Rasoi. Hence, what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A. H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqan! The mosque is still known far and wide as the Sita ki Rasoi mosque. And that temple is extant by its side.
- Mirza Ali Jan, Hadiqa(h)-i Sha(u)hada (“The garden of martyrdom”),1856, Lucknow, p. 247. cited by VHP evidence bundle History vs. Casuistry, Voice of India, Delhi, 1991, p.14; quoted in Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers. , cited by Peter Van der Veer, Religious Nationalism, also in History vs. Casuistry, 1991, also cited by Dr. Harsh Narain, "Rama-Janmabhumi Temple: Muslim Testimony", 1990, and quoted in Goel, S.R. Hindu Temples - What Happened to them.
- Different translation: "The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh were also purged of this mean practice [of kufr]. This [Awadh] was a great worshipping centre and the capital of [the kingdom of] Rama's father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed. The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbaland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan... That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..." Hadiqa-i-Shahada by Mirza Jan (1856), pages 4-7. The author was an eye-witness and an active participant in the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wazid Ali Shah's rule in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi from the Hindus. His book was ready just after the failure of the jihad and was published the following year (1856) in Lucknow. In Chapter IX of his book, entitled Wazid Ali Shah Aur Unka Ahd ("Wazid Ali Ahah and His Regime"), we find his account of construction of the Babri mosque.
- Mirza Jan was an active participant in the Jihad for recapture of the Hanuman-garhi. Kishore Kunal writes that he wrongly attributed the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi to Babur (instead of Aurangzeb), and the claim was repeated by subsequent writers. See Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited. ch 9.
- According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from the first to build mosques, monasteries, and inns, spread Islam, and put (a stop to) non-Islamic practices, wherever they found prominence (of kufr). Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura, Bindraban etc., from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babari mosque was built up in AH 923 (?) under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple (butkhane Janmsthan mein) in Faizabad Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of Rama's father'...‘Among the Hindus it was known as Sita ki Rasoi’ (p. 9-10)... 'A great mosque was built on the spot where Sita ki Rasoi is situated. During the regime of Babar, the Hindus had no guts to be a match for the Muslims. The mosque was built in AH 923 (?) under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan' Aurangzeb built a mosque on the Hanuman Garhi' The Bairagis effaced the mosque and erected a temple in its place. Then idols began to be worshipped openly in the Babari mosque where the Sita ki Rasoi is situated.'
- According to Harsh Narain, the publication of the chapter "dealing with the Jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi for recapture of Hanuman Garhi from the Bairagis" was suppressed "on the ground that its publication would not be opportune in view of the prevailing political situation". Dr. Kakorawi himself lamented that ‘suppression of any part of any old composition or compilation like this can create difficulties and misunderstandings for future historians and researchers’.
- Muraqqa-i-Khusrawî (Tãrîkh-i-Awadh) by Shykh Azmat Alî Kãkorwî Nãmî ,
- Shykh Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1811–1893), Muraqqa(h)-i Khusrawi also known as the Tarikh-i Av(w)adh cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 8185504164 Quoted in Dr. Harsh Narain: Rama-Janmabhumi Temple Muslim Testimony Harsh Narain (Indian Express, February 26, 1990) and in Shourie, A., & Goel, S. R. (1990). Hindu temples: What happened to them.
- Different translation: "Awadh was the capital of the father of Lachhman and Ram. [There,] under the guidance of Musa Ashikan, a magnificent Babri mosque was constructed at the site of the temple within the premises of Janmasthan, which was popularly known amongst Hindus as Sita ki Rasoi. The date of construction can be reckoned from Khair Baqi... And a mosque was also constructed at the site of Ram Darbar by Fidai Khan, subedar, which was later demolished and mitigated by the Hindus." Tarikh-i Awadh or Muraqqa-i Khusrawi by Sheikh Mohammed Azmat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1869). Kakorawi (1811-1893) wrote this book in 1869, but it did not see the light of day for more than a century. When dr. Zaki Kakorawi prepared a press copy, the F.A. Ahmad Memorial Committee agreed to publish the book, in 1986, but without the chapter on the 1855 episode. Subsequently, dr. Kakorawi published this chapter independently in 1987, under the title: Amir Ali Shah aur Markah-i Hanuman Garhi. 
- Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar's Masjid.'
- In an application dated November 30, 1858, ... the Babari mosque has been called ‘masjid-i Janmasthan’ and the courtyard near the arch and the pulpit within the boundary of the mosque, ‘maqam Janmasthan ka’. The Bairagis had raised a platform in the courtyard which the applicant wanted to be dismantled. He has mentioned that the place of Janmasthan had been lying unkempt/in disorder (parishan) for hundreds of years and that the Hindus performed worship there... Well, if the Babari mosque is the Janmasthan mosque, its courtyard is the Janmasthan, and the Hindus had all along been carrying out their worship, all that implies that there must have been some construction there as part of a (Janmasthan) temple, which Mir Baqi partly demolished and partly converted into the existing Babari mosque, with or without Babar’s approval. And the Hindus had no alternative but to make do with the temple-less courtyard. Otherwise, it is simply unthinkable that they might have been performing worship for such a long time and on such a sacred place without a proper temple.
- Sir! Of late, one Nihang Sikh, who is a resident of Punjab, a Government employee and a Bairagi, is on rampage at the Janmasthan. In the middle of Baburi mosque near the mehrab and mimber he has constructed a chabutara made of clay which measures about four fingers in height by filling it with lime-stones. Following his faith he has unnecessarily made illumination and after having raised the platform in the mosque to the height of one and a quarter yards he has placed a flag, picture and idol there. After digging a pit equal to that measurement he has constructed a concrete parapet. Thereafter, he has made aatish and illumination. He is fully occupied with worship and homa. He has written ‘Rama’, ‘Rama’ with coal everywhere in the mosque. Now it is time for justice, as the Hindus are committing acts of high-handedness and tyranny on the Muslims. You are the master of both the parties, and if any person constructs forcibly, he would be punished by your honour. Kindly consider the fact that a mosque is a place of worship for the Muslims only and not for the Hindus. Earlier the flag (nishan) of Janmasthana was lying there for hundreds of years and Hindus used to do puja. ... It is requested that Murtaza Khan of Kotwal City be ordered that he himself should visit the spot, inspect the new construction, get it demolished and oust the Hindus from there. He should get the flag and the idol removed and the writing on the walls washed. Orders may be issued for the future (paper torn). Having deemed it necessary, it has been urged so.
- Complaint of Syyed Muhammad Khatib dated 30th November, 1858 A.D. [Exhibit 20 (Suit-1)] Gharib Parwar Aadil-e-Zaman Salamat!. Moazzin Masjid Babri at Oudh. quoted in in Kiśora, K. (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- A great mosque was built on the spot where Sita ki Rasoi is situated. During the regime of Babar, the Hindus had no guts to be a match for the Muslims. The mosque was built in 923(?) A.H. under the patronage of Sayyid Mir Ashiqan… Aurangzeb built a mosque on the Hanuman Garhi… The Bairagis effaced the mosque and erected a temple in its place. Then idols began to be worshipped openly in the Babari mosque where the Sita ki Rasoi is situated,’ (pp. 71-72). The author adds that ‘formerly, it is Shykh Ali Hazin’s observation which held good’ and quotes the following Persian couplet of the Shykh:... O Shykh! just witness the miracle of my house of idols, which, when desecrated, or demolished, becomes the house of God (a mosque). So, purporting to mean that formerly temples were demolished for construction of mosques, the author, Surur, laments that ‘the times have so changed that now the mosque was demolished for construction of a temple (on the Hanuman Garhi)’ (p. 72).
- Fasanah-i Ibrat by the great early Urdu novelist. Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur (1787-1867), quoted in Harsh Narain: Rama-Janmabhumi Temple Muslim Testimony Harsh Narain (Indian Express, February 26, 1990) quoted from Shourie, A., & Goel, S. R. (1990). Hindu temples: What happened to them. Harsh Narain writes that the original edition contained a reference to the demolition of the Rama temple, but Sayyid Masud Hasan Rizwi Adib omitted the reference altogether in the second edition (and Dr. Kakorawi supplied the omission in the third edition).
- Different translation: "During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was Babari mosque. As during this period the Hindus could not dare to offer any resistance, the mosque was constructed under the benign guidance of Saiyed Mir Ashikan. Its date of construction could be reckoned from [the words] Khair-Baqi. And in the Ram Darbar, a mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan, the subedar."[After further describing the construction of another mosque at Hanuman Garhi by Aurangzeb, the author states that later on, after the defeat of Nawab Shujauddaula at Buxar, the Bairagis occupied the Garhi :]"The Bairagis mitigated the mosque at Hanuman Garhi and constructed a temple [thereon]. And then, open prayers were henceforth offered [by the Bairagis] in the Babri mosque comprising the site of Sita ki Rasoi. The [Nawabi] administration could not do anything about it." Fasana-i Ibrat by the Urdu novelist Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur.Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has appended an excerpt from this book by Surur (1787-1867) in his work. It may be noted that Surur mentioned the Sahifa-i Bahadurshahi, copied in 1816, as the source from which his observations could be verified by anybody interested. 
- ‘….and the masjid buit by Babar stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya,that is to say to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago it it too late now to remedy the grievance….
- Col. J.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Fyzabad’s order dated March 26, 1886, in Civil Appeal No.27 of 1885, Mahant Raghubir Das versus Secretary of State for India and Muhammed Asghar. ( Muslim India, March 1986, p 107). Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers. 
- Sayyid Musa Ashiqan built a mosque after levelling down Rajah Ramachandra's palace and Sita's Kitchen by order of ...Babar... and king Muhiyy-u d-Din Aurangzib Alamgir built another mosque at the same place.
- Haji Muhammed Hasan, Diya-i Akthar, Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers. 
- Different translation: "The mosque which had been built by Saiyid Musa Ashikan in 923 AH in compliance with the order of Zahiruddin Badshah, Delhi, after demolishing the private apartments (mahal sarai) of Raja Ram Chander and the kitchen of Sita, as well as the second mosque built by Muiuddin Aurangzeb, Alamgir Badshah, [in fact] both these mosques have developed cracks at various places because of the ageing character. Both these mosques have been gradually mitigated by the Bairagis and this very fact accounts for the riot. The Hindus have great hatred for the Muslims..." Zia-i Akhtar by Haji Muhammed Hasan (Lucknow 1878), p.38-39. 
- And now they call it Janmasthan and Rasoi-i Sita Ji. Having demolished these structures, King Babar got a majestic mosque constructed. ... Accordingly, in fulfilment of the pledge King Babar had taken before those saints, Babar ... got a magnificent mosque constructed.... The faqirs answered that they would bless him if he promised to build a mosque after demolishing the Janmasthan temple. Babar accepted the faqirs' offer...
- Mawlawiyy Abdu I-Karim, translated into Urdu by Abdu I-Ghaffar as Gumgashtah Halat-i Ayodhya Yani Tarikh Parinah-i Madinatu I-Awliya. Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.  Harsh Narain writes that in newer editions, controversial material has been excluded and calls it a "tragic tale of vandalism", and that the account [about the demolition of the Rama temple] is conspicuous by its absence in the 1981 edition.
- Different translation: "To the east of this dargah is mahalla Akbarpur, whose second name is also Kot Raja Ram Chander Ji. In this Kot, there were few burjs [towery big halls]. Towards the side of the western burj, there was the house of birthplace (makan-i paidaish) and the kitchen (bawarchi khana) of the above-mentioned Raja. And now, this premises is known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji. After the demolition and mitigation of these houses [viz. Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji], Babar Badshah got a magnificent mosque constructed thereon." Gumgashte Halat-i Ajudhya Awadh ("Forgotten Events of Ayodhya"), i.e. Tarikh-i Parnia Madina Alwaliya (in Persian) (Lucknow 1885), by Maulvi Abdul Karim. The author, who was then the imam of the Babri Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazrat Shah Jamal Gojjri . In this work, the author has referred to numerous contemporary sources. It was translated into Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Gaffar in 1979. 
- “...the destruction is very generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzabe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares and Mathura.”
- “What may have been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill-founded. The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed is said to have erected mosques on the situations of the most remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a copy is given) to have been built by Babur.”
- Francis Buchanan-Hamilton quoted in Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- “Several of the King’s regiment were looking on all the time, but their orders were not to interfere. It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mahomedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British rule, a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahomedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.” (p. 236)
- A.F. Millett (AF Mettell) in his report of the Settlement of the Land Revenue Officer of the Faizabad District, which was published in 1880.quoted in Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
20th to 21th centuryEdit
- Subsequently Aurangzeb also desecrated the shrines of Ayodhya which led to prolonged bitterness between the Hindus and Muslims. The latter occupied the Janmmasthan by force ,and also made an assault on Hanuman Garhi .... As a result, in 1858 an outer enclosure was put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who were forbidden access to the inner yard , had to perform their puja on a platform outside ... Outside the outer wall of this contested shrine there is an old and broken image of the Varah (boar)
- Joshi, 1960:352-3. UP District Gazetteers - Faizabad (1960),in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 3
- “Notwithstanding all the difficulties discussed above, the original location of the Janma-sthãna is comparatively certain since it seems to be attested by the location of the mosque built by Babur in the building of which materials of a previous Hindu temple were used and are still visible. The mosque is believed by general consensus to occupy the site of the Janmasthana.”
- “The oldest pieces of archaeological evidence are the black columns which remain from the old (Visnu) temple that was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended to earth (Janma-bhumi). This temple was destroyed by the first Mogul prince Babur in AD 1528 and replaced by a mosque which still exists. The following specimens of these pillars are known to exist: fourteen pillars were utilized by the builder Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque and are still partly visible within it; two pillars were placed besides the grave of the Muslim saint Fazl Abbas alias Musa Ashikhan, who, according to oral tradition, incited Babur to demolish the Hindu temple. The grave and these two pillars (driven upside-down into the ground) are still shown in Ayodhya, a little south of the Kubertila. A seventeenth specimen is found in the new Janmasthana temple of the north of the Babur mosque. It is rather a door-jamb than a column.” ... The original birthplace temple dated from the 10th or 11th century. Before its destruction the temple must have been one of the main pilgrimage centres of Ayodhya, _ especially on the occasion of Ramanwami.
- Ayodhya by Hans Bakker, quoted in Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited. ch 11, and in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 1
- ‘And among them is the great mosque that was built by the Timurid King Babar in the sacred city of Ajodhya. It is believed that Rama Chandra, considered to be the manifestation of God, was born here. There is a long story about his wife Sita. There was a big temple for them in this city. At a certain place Sita used to sit and cook food for her consort. Well, the said King Babar demolished it and built a mosque at that very place with chiselled stone in 923 A.H.
- The JANNAH AL-MASHRIQ WA MATLA ‘AN-NUR AL-MASHRIQ, retitled as AL-HIND-U FI AL- Ahd al-Islami, by Maulana Hakim Sayyid Abd al-Hayy [Abudl Hai], translated into Urdu (from Arabic) by Maulana Shams Tabriz Khan under the title Hindustan Islami Ahad mein and introduced by the author’s illustrious son Maulana Abul-Hasan Ali Nadwi alias ‘Ali Mian. Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers.  Also cited in Arun Shourie: Hideaway Communalism (Indian Express, February 5, 1989) and in Shourie, A., & Goel, S. R. (1990). Hindu temples: What happened to them.  Harsh Narain and Arun Shourie claim that the Urdu version is found to have been withdrawn from circulation and even removed from several libraries. There is an English translation also, with which undue liberties have been taken.
- At Ayodhya, where there stood the temple of Ramchandra Ji's Janmasthan, there is Sita Ji Ki Rasoi adjacent to it, King Babar got a magnificent mosque built there... Babar got the mosque built after demolishing the Janmasthan and used in his mosque the stone of the same Janmasthan, which was richly engraved, precious kasauti stone...
- Muhammed Najmu I-Ghani Khan Rampuri, Tarikh-i Awadh, 1919, Quoted from Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute: Focus on Muslim sources. Delhi: Penman Publishers. , and , in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 5
- Different translation: "Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated in Ayodhya., under the patronage of Saiyid Ashikan, and Sita ki Rasoi is situated adjacent to it. The date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH). Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands that temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were still three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and the Treta ka Thakur. Babar built the mosque after having demolished Janmasthan." "...in short, the turbulence [of 1855] reached such a stage that apart from the mitigated mosque at Hanuman Garhi, the Hindus built a temple in the courtyard of Babri Masjid where Sita ki Rasoi was situated..." "...Ultimately, on Zildaqqa 1271 AH [July 1855], for the tenth or twelfth time, nearly two or three hundred Muslims gathered at Babri Masjid which is situated inside the Sita ki Rasoi..." Tarikh-i Awadh by Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909). Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has brought out an abridged edition of this book. excerpt from vol.II (pp.570-575) of this edition. 
- "This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ajodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque..."
- Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein by Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai. Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai (d.1923), an eminent scholar on the history of Islamic culture and also rector of Nadwatul-Ulama, wrote on "India under Islamic Rule" in Arabic, in the early 20th century. The book was published in Hyderabad in 1972. It was translated into Urdu and published with a foreword by his worthy son, Maulana Abdul Hasan Nadwi, alias Ali Mian, by the Nadwatul-Ulama, Lucknow 1973. An English translation was published in 1977. 
- Future historians will include the no-temple argument of the 1990s as a remarkable case study in their surveys of academic fraud and politicized scholarship.
- Koenraad Elst. Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002)
- Until 1989, there was a complete consensus in all sources (Hindu, Muslim and European) which spoke out on the matter, viz. that the Babri Masjid had been built in forcible replacement of a Hindu temple."
- Koenraad Elst, Who is a Hindu, (2001)
- Until the beginning of this century, official documents called it Masjid-i-Janamsthan, “mosque of the birthplace”, and the hill on which it stands was designated as Ramkot (Rama’s fort) or Janamsthan (birthplace). Since 1949, the building is effectively in use as a Hindu temple...
- Koenraad Elst. Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002)
- "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation."
- “It is locally affirmed that at the time of the Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu shrines at Ajodhya and little else. These were the Janamasthan temple, the Swargaddwar and the Treta-ka-Thakur, and each was successively made the object of attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janamasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely employed, and many of the columns are in good preservation; they are of close-grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti, and carved with various devices.” ... This desecration of the most sacred spot in the city caused great bitterness between Hindus and Mussalmans... It is said that up to this time both Hindus and Musalmans used to worship in the same building but since the mutiny an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who are forbidd en access lo the inner yard, make their offerings on a platform which they have raised in the outer one.
- H.R. Neville, Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177) cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 8185504164 H.R. Neville’s Fyzabad Distict Gazetteer, quoted in Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited. ch 18, and in in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. chapters 3, 6.
- All relevant British government records followed by the District Gazetteer Faizabad compiled and published by the Congress government in 1960 declare with one voice that the so-called Babari mosque at Ayodhya is standing on the debris of a Ramjanmasthan temple demolished by the order of Babar in 1528.
- But the unique and the most important feature of its construction is the use of... nook-shafts (corner pillars)... They bear stylized designs of kirttimukha and lahara-vallari and are obviously Hindu in their origin... Technically called a 'clerestory', this feature has been used on a large scale in the mosques of Ahmedabad in imitation of the preceding temples of the region... More than the (supposedly) corbelled ceilings and corbelled pendentives, these 11 nook-shafts testify, without any doubt, that material from some despoiled Hindu temple was used in the construction or the final restoration of this mosque.
- Nath, R., & Historical Research Documentation Programme (India). (1991). Architecture & site of the Baburi Masjid of Ayodhya: A historical critique. Jaipur: Historical Research Documentation Programme. p. 10-11
- The foregoing study of the architecture and site of the Baburi Masjid has shown, unequivocally and without any doubt, that it stands on the site of a Hindu temple which originally existed in the Ramkot on the bank of the river Sarayu, and Hindu temple material has also been used in its construction.
- Nath, R., & Historical Research Documentation Programme (India). (1991). Architecture & site of the Baburi Masjid of Ayodhya: A historical critique. Jaipur: Historical Research Documentation Programme. Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (2003). Ayodhya: The finale ; science versus secularism in the excavations debate.
- I have been to the site and have had occasion to study the mosque, privately, and I have absolutely no doubt that the mosque stands on the site of a Hindu temple on the north-western corner of the temple-fortress Ramkot.
- R. Nath: letter in Indian Express, 2-1-91. Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (2002). Ayodhya: The case against the temple.
Narendra Modi's speech at Ram Mandir Bhoomi PujanEdit
- PM Modi's Speech At Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan. August 5, 2020. Full Text Of PM Modi's Speech At Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan
- India is witnessing a golden historic moment with the blessings of the mighty Lord Bhaskara on the banks of the auspicious river Saryu. Across the length and breadth of India, from Kanyakumari to KsheerBhawani, from Koteshwar to Kamakhya, from Jagannath to Kedarnath, from Somnath to Kashi Vishwanath, SametShikhar to Shravanabelagola, from Bodhgaya to Sarnath, from Amritsar to Patna Sahib, from Andaman to Ajmer, from Lakshadweep to Leh, the entire country is encompassed by and for Lord Rama!
- The whole country is ecstatic and each heart is illuminated. Entire country is emotional and overwhelmed to be a part of history and witness this long awaited historic moment.
- The centuries of wait is getting over today. Crores of Indians, I am sure are unable to believe that they could be a part of such a momentous occasion in their lifetimes.
- Today, the Ram Janmabhoomi has become free from the centuries-old chain of destruction and resurrection.
- Friends, several generations devoted themselves completely during our freedom struggle. There was never a moment during the period of slavery that there was not a movement for freedom.
- Friends, Lord Ram is entrenched in our hearts. Whenever we undertake any work, we look upon to Lord Rama for inspiration. Look at the phenomenal powers of Lord Rama.
- Buildings collapsed, every attempt was made to erase the existence … but Lord Rama is fully embedded in our hearts. Lord Rama is the foundation of our culture; he is the dignity of India. He personifies dignity.
- You will find Rama in different forms, in the different Ramayanas, but Ram is present everywhere, Rama is for all. That is why, Rama is the connecting link in India's 'unity in diversity'.
- Indonesia is the country that has the maximum number of muslimsin the world. They are having various unique versions of Ramayana i.e. ‘Kakawin Ramayana’, ‘Swarnadeep Ramayana’, ‘Yogeshwar Ramayana’ just like our country. Lord Rama is venerated & adored there even today. There are ‘Ramker Ramayana’ in Cambodia, ‘Fra Lak Fra Lam Ramayana’ in Lao, ‘Hikayat Seri Ram’ in Malaysia and ‘Ramaken’ in Thailand. You will find description of Lord Rama and Rama Katha even in Iran and China. In Sri Lanka, the katha of Ramayana is taught &sung in the name of ‘Janaki Harana’ i.e. Abduction of Janaki. Nepal is directly connected to Lord Rama through Mata Janaki.
- Ayodhya is the town of Lord Rama himself. Lord Rama himself has described the glory of Ayodhya “जन्मभूमि मम पूरी सुहावनि।।“ (janma bhoomi mama poori suhaavani) i.e“My birthplace Ayodhya is the city of supernatural beauty.”
Quotes about Babri MasjidEdit
- A court ruling of 1951 cites testimony of local Muslims that the mosque had not been used since 1936, which means that in 1949 the Hindus took over an unused building - hardly worth the current Babri Masjid movement with its cries of “Islam in danger!” (or its newer version, “Secularism in danger!”) and its hundreds of riot victims. On 3 March 1951, the Civil Judge of Faizabad observed: “it further appears from a number of affidavits of certain Muslim residents of Ayodhya that at least from 1936 onwards the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor offered prayers there... Nothing has been pointed to discredit these affidavits.” .... Prof. B.P. Sinha claims to know how this disuse of the Masjid came about: “As early as 1936-37, a bill was introduced in the legislative council of U.P. to transfer the site to the Hindus (... ) the bill was withdrawn on an unwritten understanding that no namaz [be] performed.”
- Court Order of the Civil Judge of Faizabad of March 3, 1951. Prof. B.P. Sinha. Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (2002). Ayodhya: The case against the temple.
- It seems that the name Babri Masjid became the official term from this report onwards, as before it was mostly referred to as Masjid-i Janmasthan... It is even disputed whether the Masjid was effectively used before 1934, and even before 1855. ... What is more, neither [Joseph Tieffenthaler] nor, to my knowledge, any of the Muslim sources, mentions Muslim worship in the Babri Masjid. These are indications for what many common people in Ayodhya have told me : that the Babri Masjid has not been a real mosque for most of its history. With such a prehistory, it also becomes understandable that the local Muslim community in the 1930s and 1940s could have a mosque standing there and yet not use it... on the strength of local Muslim testimony, the Babri Masjid was not in regular use since at least 1936. If any firm counter-proof had come up by now, I guess we would have seen it: the pro-Babri faction has enough media at its disposal to present the strong points in its case.
- Quoted from Elst, Koenraad (1991). Ayodhya and after: Issues before Hindu society
- That the Babri Masjid replaced a pre-existent centre of worship, is also indicated by the fact that Hindus kept returning to the place, where more indulgent Muslim rulers allowed them to worship on a platform just outside the mosque. This is attested by a number of different pieces of testimony by Western travelers and by local Muslims, all of the pre-British period, as well as from shortly after the 1856 British take-over but explicitly referring to older local Muslim sources. A number of these documents have been presented by Harsh Narain and A.K. Chatterjee. That they are authentic and have a real proof value, is indirectly corroborated by the attempts made to make two of them disappear, which Harsh Narain and Arun Shourie independently discovered.
- Elst, K. Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991)
- There is archaeological evidence that a temple, or at the very least a building with pillars, has stood on the Babri Masjid spot since the eleventh century. Of course, because of the structure standing there, the archaeological search has been far from exhaustive, but at least of the existence of this 11th century building we can be certain... However, it is very unlikely that the place was not functioning as a Hindu place of worship just before the Babri Masjid was built. As is well known, fourteen pillar-stones with Hindu temple ornamentation have been used in the construction of the Babri Masjid. Considering the quantity of bricks employed in the building, one cannot say that these fourteen pillar-stones were used merely to economize on bricks: quantitatively, they simply didn't make a difference. These remnants of Hindu architecture were more probably use in order to display the victory of the mosque over the temple, of Islam over Paganism. That was in keeping with a very common practice of Muslim conquerors, who often left pieces of the outer wall of the destroyed temple standing (as was done in the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, replacing the Kashi Vishvanath temple), or worked pieces of idols into the threshold of the newly- built mosque, so that the faithful could tread them underfoot.
- Elst, K. Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society (1991)
- “No evidence whatsoever has been proffered of continued Muslim occupation Babri Masjid, while the uninterrupted presence of Hindu devotees has been attested by several sources. Babri Masjid finds no mention in the revenue records of the Nawabi and British periods, nor was any Waqf ever created for its upkeep. No Muslim filed an FIR when the image of Sri Rama was placed under the central dome on 23rd December 1949.” (p.144)
- Meenakshi Jain, The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya (2017)(p.145)
- BabriMasjid was and will always be a Masjid. #HagiaSophia is a great example for us. Usurpation of the land by an unjust, oppressive, shameful and majority appeasing judgment can’t change it’s status. No need to be heartbroken. Situations don’t last forever.
- Today when at the site of the Babri Masjid, the foundation stone of a temple is being laid, AIMPLB feels the need to reiterate that ‘according to the light of the Shariat, where a mosque comes up once, it remains a mosque till eternity’... Hence, Babri Masjid was a mosque yesterday, is one today and God willing will remain a mosque. By keeping idols in a mosque, starting pooja there or stopping the namaz that was offered there for a long time, do not change the status of a mosque.
- All India Muslim Personal Law Board. AIMPLB Aug 2020. Once a mosque, always a mosque, Muslim personal law board says ahead of Ram Mandir ceremony
- It wasn't us Muslims
who built Babri Mosque
over Ram's Temple;
It was those wicked Hindus
who built the Ram Temple
under the Babri Mosque.
- Tarek Fatah, Aug 9 2020 on Twitter
- I don’t think it is a controversy. It is a non-issue that stems out of several backgrounds. Too many temples have been destroyed for anyone to cry about a mosque.
- Tarek Fatah: Breaking Down Jihadi Terror . Interview with Manish Pant- Mar 22, 2015, Interview 
- When several thousands of kar sevaks brutally demolished the Babri Masjid, refusing to listen to RSS cadres, who were acting as the last ramparts of the paternalist perspectives. Numerous comments showed clearly that for the academic and establishment commentators , the most insupportable thing was that uneducated youngsters, without any letters of introduction or written authorizations, had intervened to change the course of things.
- Gerard Heuze, Ou va l'Inde moderne. p 59ff. in Elst, K. (2010). The saffron swastika: The notion of "Hindu fascism". p 713-4
- Sir! Of late, one Nihang Sikh, who is a resident of Punjab, a Government employee and a Bairagi, is on rampage at the Janmasthan. In the middle of Baburi mosque near the mehrab and mimber he has constructed a chabutara made of clay which measures about four fingers in height by filling it with lime-stones. Following his faith he has unnecessarily made illumination and after having raised the platform in the mosque to the height of one and a quarter yards he has placed a flag, picture and idol there. After digging a pit equal to that measurement he has constructed a concrete parapet. Thereafter, he has made aatish and illumination. He is fully occupied with worship and homa. He has written ‘Rama’, ‘Rama’ with coal everywhere in the mosque. Now it is time for justice, as the Hindus are committing acts of high-handedness and tyranny on the Muslims. You are the master of both the parties, and if any person constructs forcibly, he would be punished by your honour. Kindly consider the fact that a mosque is a place of worship for the Muslims only and not for the Hindus. Earlier the flag (nishan) of Janmasthana was lying there for hundreds of years and Hindus used to do puja. Because of conspiracy of Shiv Ghulam Thandedar, Oudh Government, the Bairagis constructed overnight a Chabutra up to the height of one ‘Balisht’ until the orders of injunction were issued. At that time the Deputy Commissioner suspended the Thanedar and fine was imposed on Bairagis. Now the Chabootra has been raised to about 1¼ yards. Thus, high-handedness has been proved. It is requested that Murtaza Khan of Kotwal City be ordered that he himself should visit the spot, inspect the new construction, get it demolished and oust the Hindus from there. He should get the flag and the idol removed and the writing on the walls washed.
- Complaint of Syyed Muhammad, in 1858 CE, “Copy of the application of Mohammad Khatib Moazzin of the Masjid, dated Novermber 30, 1858, case no. 884 regarding application of Thanedar, Oudh, for reconstructing the symbol within the Masjid Janam Sthāna Mahant Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa Mohalla Ram Kot, (Kot Ram Chander) Pargana Haweli, Oudh, Tahsil and District Faizabad decided on December 15, 1858..quoted in Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- Today Mr. Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa resident of Punjab, organised Hawan and Puja of Guru Govind Singh and erected a flag of Sri Bhagwan, within the premises of the Masjid. At the time of pitching the flag, 25 Sikhs were posted there for security. Deemed necessary, so requested. May your regime progress. Pleasure.
- Khudawand-e-Parwaz Huzoor for summoning Nihang Singh Faqir who is residing within the Masjid. Order passed on November 30, 1858. So the parwana was taken to the said Faqir by this obedient servant who is posted there and the subject/content thereof was explained to him. He was explained its text orally also. He was admonished (for his act) but the said Faqir continued to insist that every place belonged to Nirankar and justice should be done to him. Neither he said a word about leaving the place he was illegally occupying nor did he leave.
- Report of the S.H.O. Sheetal Dubey, 1858 A.D. Copy of the application of Sheetal Dubey Thanedar Oudh, 1858, along with the application of Thanedar Oudh for re-erecting flag within the Masjid Janam Asthana resident of Mohalla Ram Kot (Kot Ramchandra Pargana, Haweli, Oudh, Tahsil and District Faizabad. quoted in Kishore, Kunal (2016). Ayodhyā revisited.
- The old temple of Ramachandra at Janmasthanam must have been a very fine one, for many of its columns have been used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar's masjid. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-coloured or black stone, called by the natives knsnuti, 'touch-stone slate,' and carved with different devices. They are from seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and capital, and round or octagonal intermediately
- Alois Anton Führer (Fuhrer 1889: 68). quoted in Jain, M. (2017). The battle of Rama: Case of the temple at Ayodhya. ch 1
- [It is ] inconceivable that Babar (or Aurangzeb) should have first made or got made thorough research to ascertain the exact birth-place of Lord Rama. which was not known to anyone for centuries, and then got constructed the mosque on the said site.
- Justice Khan, in the Ayodhya judgment, 2010. in Meenakshi Jain, The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya (2017)(p.135)
- There was a widely held belief that the prestige of the Janmabhumi temple had aroused the envy of local Muslims, especially the pir, Fazl Abbas Musa Ashikhan. He goaded Babar to demolish the temple and raise a mosque in its stead. Ashikhan's grave at Ayodhya is marked by two pillars of a temple, which resembled the fourteen pillars inside the Babri Masjid.
- Jain, M. (2013). Rama and Ayodhya., p 100
- Map of Janmasthan in 1717 Map from the Jaipur State Records