New Delhi. The controversy regarding the survey of Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh had not yet subsided that now the name of Ajmer, Rajasthan has also come into discussion. The reason is a petition demanding a survey of the famous Ajmer Sharif Dargah. A local court in Ajmer, Rajasthan on Wednesday issued a notice to the Union Minority Ministry, Archaeological Survey of India and Ajmer Dargah Committee in this case.
Petition claims, Shiv temple existed before Dargah
Petitioner and Hindu Sena chief Vishnu Gupta has claimed that Ajmer Sharif Dargah was earlier a Shiva temple, which was demolished to make the Dargah. The court has sent a notice to ASI in this matter, due to which the discussion has intensified that a survey can be conducted here also like Kashi and Mathura.
Story of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, Garib Nawaz
Ajmer Sharif Dargah is the mausoleum of 13th century Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti. Moinuddin Chishti of Persian origin is also known as ‘Garib Nawaz’ and ‘Sultan-e-Hind’. He spread the Chishti Sufi order in Ajmer, Rajasthan. His teachings contained a message of peace and harmony, which attracted people of all religions towards him.
Who was Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti?
Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti was born in 1143 AD in the Sistan region of Iran. He left his father’s business to follow the spiritual path. Before coming to India, he took initiation from the famous saint Hazrat Khwaja Usman Haruni. In the year 1192, after the Second Battle of Tarain, when Muhammad Ghori defeated Prithviraj Chauhan, Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti reached Ajmer. His sermons and teachings deeply influenced the local people. After his death, the Mughal rulers built a grand dargah on his mausoleum.
‘Urs’ is celebrated every year
‘Urs’ is organized every year on the death anniversary of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti. It is a festival where people celebrate their death rather than mourning. Followers believe that on this day the saints meet their God.
What will happen now?
After the Ajmer court issued the notice, now all eyes are on this case. It will be interesting to see what action the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and other concerned parties take in this matter.
