The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.These are both from Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, one of three judges in the case.
It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
What is the meaning of the finding that the mosque built in the 16th century by the conqueror Babar "was built against the tenets of Islam"?
Muslims today want everyone to believe that theirs is a "Religion of Peace". Furthermore, they insist that this has always been the case, and that the spread of Islam has always been through peaceful means, and that, indeed, their own religious teachings require that this be the case.
Very well, then. If Islam forbids such things as destroying other people's sacred places and then gleefully building Victory Mosques using the leftover rubble as the foundations, fine. So be it. And since the Babri Masjid ("Babar's mosque") was undeniably built on the ruins of a vast Hindu Temple complex, and this complex, in turn, was at a site that has been sacred to Hindus since "time immemorial" (all of this was affirmed in today's court ruling), then said mosque "was built against the tenets of Islam."
The Religion of Peace has, therefore, been hoisted on its own petard. Either they build their mosques on the smoking ruins of other people's ancient sacred sites, or they don't. If they claim that they don't then any "mosque" built in that fashion was built "against the tenets of Islam" and, therefore, "cannot be treated as a mosque."
Here is some suggested further reading on the history of Muslim aggression and Hindu resistance in India:
Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders (636 AD to 1206 AD)
by Sita Ram Goel
HINDU TEMPLES: WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM
Volume I: A Preliminary Survey
Volume II: The Islamic Evidence
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India
by K.S. Lal
Here is the preface to the last book listed above, The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India:
Had India been completely converted to Muhammadanism during the thousand years of Muslim conquest and rule, its people would have taken pride in the victories and achievements of Islam and even organised panIslamic movements and Islamic revolutions. Conversely, had India possessed the determination of countries like France and Spain to repulse the Muslims for good, its people would have forgotten about Islam and its rule. But while India could not be completely conquered or Islamized, the Hindus did not lose their ancient religious and cultural moorings. In short, while Muslims with all their armed might proved to be great conquerors, rulers and proselytizers, Indians or Hindus, with all their weaknesses, proved to be great survivors. India never became an Islamic country. Its ethos remained Hindu while Muslims also continued to live here retaining their distinctive religious and social system. It is against this background that an assessment of the legacy of Muslim rule in India has been attempted. Source-materials on such a vast area of study are varied and scattered. What we possess is a series of glimpses furnished by Persian chroniclers, foreign visitors and indigenous writers who noted what appeared to them of interest. It is not an easy task, on the basis of these sources, to reconstruct an integrated picture of the medieval scenario spanning almost a millennium, beginning with the establishment of Muslim rule. The task becomes more difficult when the scenario converges on the modem age with its pre- and post-Partition politics and slogans of the two-nation theory, secularism, national integration and minority rights. Consequently, some generalisations, repetitions and reiterations have inevitably crept into what is otherwise a work of historical research. For this the author craves the indulgence of the reader.