Earlier Muslim scholars led by Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari have passed a resolution claiming that giving away the mosque land or its partition is ‘haraam’ under Shariat (Islamic jurisprudence) soon after the court verdict.
Now All India Muslim Personal Law Board has decided to appeal against the verdict of the Allahabad high court, which divided the disputed site equally among the joint possessors of the site in the absence of clear title with any of the claimants, as a judicial relief.
Again S Q Illyasi a spokesperson of the board says ” We are only claiming our property back. A mosque cannot be gifted, shifted or sold ” Agreed, if the mosque is not unislamic and is not against the Tenets of Islam.
If one construes the verdict carefully which is based on evidence, faith and operation of law it should not be that difficult to see through clearly the truth established in the verdict.
The verdict brings out the fact that Babri Mosque stood on the ruins of a Holy Shrine and therefore unislamic and against the Tenets of Islam.For Islam doesn’t allow a mosque to be built on the ruins of a Holy Shrine/Temple. Thus what was all along was an unislamic mosque. The mosque brought down was not a holy Mosque built according to the Islamic faith and belief but was an unholy structure built on the ruins of a Holy Shrine.Though unlawful destruction of any property is not justified, followers of Islam should feel relieved at the evidence that Babri Masjid was not as holy as it was thought of. And the partition done by the court is not of the holy Islamic property of the Muslims.
Therefore surrender of a holy mosque land doesn’t arise in the case of Babri Masjid as it has lost all the characteristics of a Holy Mosque in the light of the above stated facts established by evidence.That is in the first place the land did not held a mosque according to the Tenets of Islam.
Once this line of reasoning is well understood by the followers of Islam further course of reconciliation becomes easier. Agreed a mosque cannot be gifted, shifted and sold. But Shariat laws doesn’t disallow the surrender of land/mosque which are against the Tenets of Islam.
Thus the surrender of even the one third of the land given to the Muslim petitioner by the court as a judicial relief wouldn’t be in essence the surrender of an Islamic property. This understanding would pave the way fora peaceful sustainable settlement.
Followers of Islam can be provided with substantial piece of land in the vicinity of the disputed site to enable them to build a truly Holy Mosque.
If the Muslim scholars and the AIMPLB interpret the verdict based on the established facts of the unholiness of the Babri Masjid built by Babur it would become much more easier to arrive at a negotiated settlement that is truly Shariat based. If the dispute is carried on with the knowledge of the unholiness of Babri Masjid to serve some other purpose than Islam, then even a man of ordinary prudence would consider that as Unislamic and haraam.
