How 'amicable' the decision reached to relocate the 100 plus years old Indian temple from its current location to an adjacent one is an open question in the circumstance of the case.
The question may be asked why insist on building a mosque on the site of the historical130 years old Indian temple and relocating the temple to an adjacent site?
Especially when the site the temple currently stands is a small, small plot of land that can't accommodate the larger umber of Muslim worshippers who are likely to use the place of worship when it is built?
Wouldn't it make better sense to allow the old Indian temple to stand in its current location and build a mosque in an adjacent place with a larger plot of land in the first place?
By insisting the historical Indian temple be relocated away from its current spot to an adjacent one to enable a mosque to be built in its place, giving rise to unease among the Indian community wasn't a wise decision in the first place however one looks at it.
Postscript 1: Friend Simon Shared This Facebook Link On What The Man Has To Say On The Subject
Postscript 2 :Om Ni Shared The Youtube Video Below Of What Siti Kasim Has To Say On The Same Subject Win-Win For Whom?
No comments:
Post a Comment