No! Indeed a temple existed in Ayodhya & there are evidences about it.
1611, William Finch visited Ayodhya. Finch recorded the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses" but made no mention of any mosque.
1611, William Finch visited Ayodhya. Finch recorded the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses" but made no mention of any mosque.
https://twitter.com/aeJFwk9IvUA23bE/status/1402287788301582339
1634, Thomas Herbert described a "pretty old castle of Ramachand" which he described as an antique monument that was "especially memorable".
Flinch & Herbert make the case for a Mandir with reference to the castle.
Flinch & Herbert make the case for a Mandir with reference to the castle.
1672, the appearance of a mosque at the site can be inferred because Lal Das's Awadh-Vilasa describes the location of birthplace without mentioning a temple.
So between 1634-72 the Mandir has gone & Mosque has appeared.
So between 1634-72 the Mandir has gone & Mosque has appeared.
1717, Jai Singh-II purchased land surrounding the site and his documents show a mosque.
The Jesuit missionary Joseph Tieffenthaler visited the site during 1766-71 & wrote that either Aurangazeb or Babur had demolished the Ramkot fortress, including a house.
The Jesuit missionary Joseph Tieffenthaler visited the site during 1766-71 & wrote that either Aurangazeb or Babur had demolished the Ramkot fortress, including a house.
Joseph had definitely written about the matter based on local sayings about the Mandir & it's demolition.
Of course Flinch, Tieffenthaler, Herbert weren't Sanghi, right @aeJFwk9IvUA23bE ?
Of course Flinch, Tieffenthaler, Herbert weren't Sanghi, right @aeJFwk9IvUA23bE ?
The house mentioned by Joseph was considered the birthplace of Rama.
Joseph further stated (1766-71)that a mosque was constructed in its place, but the Hindus continued to offer prayers at a mud platform that marked the birthplace of Rama.
Joseph further stated (1766-71)that a mosque was constructed in its place, but the Hindus continued to offer prayers at a mud platform that marked the birthplace of Rama.
This is indeed a significant statement coming from a person who was not a Hindu.
1810, Francis B visited the site, and stated that the structure destroyed was a Mandir dedicated to Rama and not a house.
1810, Francis B visited the site, and stated that the structure destroyed was a Mandir dedicated to Rama and not a house.
Many subsequent sources state the same (Ref: Robert L & Julian T. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 2–9).
For more details & references proving Ram Mandir at Ayodhya see this article complied from my threads by @eOrganiser organiser.org/Encyc/2018/12/…
For more details & references proving Ram Mandir at Ayodhya see this article complied from my threads by @eOrganiser organiser.org/Encyc/2018/12/…
More here organiser.org/Encyc/2018/11/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
