The Ayodha: The Case Against the Temple
Koenraad Elst raises questoins in references to whether there really was a Hindu temple at the Ayodhya site later covered by the Babri Masjid, the focus is invariably on the case made by the Hindu side, viz. that there was a temple, and that different types of evidence confirm this. The standard question is: is this evidence for the temple demolition scenario valid? Have they succeeded in proving the existence of the temple? By contrast, the opponents of the temple hypothesis are but very rarely asked to put their evidence on the table. The disputed site is an elevated site near the centre of a city, quite well-known to a whole city population, so it is perfectly reasonable to expect the existence of testimonies of any alternative history of the site. As much as the temple party is expected to provide evidence for the temple, the non-temple party must provide evidence for the alternative to the temple. Not one of the numerous scholars who took up arms against the temple party has thought it necessary to explicitate even in the vaguest terms what exactly happened before a mosque was built at the site. Much less does any of them provide any kind of evidence for such an alternative scenario, even though positive proof for a non-temple scenario would be the best possible refutation of the temple scenario.
More about the Speaker
Jesus Christ and the Psychology of Prophetism - Dr Koenraad Elst - India Inspires Talks
Negationism in India - Concealing the Records of Islam
Introduction to Sita Ram Goel's Work
Specific Hindu Grievances