by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday questioned the Muslim litigants in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case for making “belated efforts” seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.
The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was told that the Muslim parties did not question the 1994 verdict’s legality till the appeal against 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the ownership of the disputed land was taken up for hearing by the top court.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, described as “belated efforts” to avoid the adjudications of the long-pending cross appeals against the high Court judgment on the title suit.
Ayodhya appeals were pending in the top court since 2010 and all through the legality of 1994 judgment was never questioned but why this belated effort now, he asked.
The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court had by its 2010 verdict had divided the disputed 2.77 acres site between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.
Muslim parties are seeking the revisiting a conclusion in the 1994 constitution bench judgment which said that the mosque was not an essential and integral part of the Muslim religious practice of offering namaz and they could offer prayers in open under the sky.
Appearing for lead petitioner M. Siddiqui represented by his legal heir, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan told the court told the court that the paragraph in the 1994 judgment which says that mosque was not essential to the Muslim religious practices and integral to it was said without examining the tenets of Islam.
He said that there was nothing in the judgment as to show how the court arrived at such a conclusion.
“If you have to say something say it after detailed examination,” Dhavan told the bench pointing to some judgments wherein the top court pronounced on some religious places after detailed examinations of the issues involved.
At this Justice Bhushan observed that nobody was questioning that mosque is essential to Islam but the question is whether offering namaz in a mosque was essential.
Dhavan will address the three judge bench on the issue on July 13 when he will advance arguments to meet the submissions made by the Hindu parties including that the issues being raised by him on mosque not being essential; part of Islamic practices have become res judicata (matter that has been adjudicated and decided) and the issues advanced by senior counsel K. Parasaran and Harish Salve in the course of their arguments.
Dhavan is seeking a relook at the 1994 judgment, contending that 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment relies on this conclusion of the top court.
He on Friday argued that a congregation at the mosque at the time of offering Namaz was essential for Muslims and “if congregation part of Islam is taken away, a large part of practice collapses”.
However, lawyers representing the Hindu parties said that reference to 1994 judgment in no way impacted the 2010 High Court judgment.
Appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, senior advocate K. Parasaran in the last hearing of the matter on May 17, had told the court that the birthplace cannot be shifted to another site, while a mosque with no particular religious significance to the Muslims can be shifted as that will “not affect the right to practice religion by offering ‘namaz’ in other mosques”.
He had argued that to go on a pilgrimage is a practice of religious faith for the Muslims as well as the Hindus, but for the Muslims, “Makkah and Madinah alone are places of particular significance” as pilgrimage centres, but for them such was not the case with Ayodhya/Babri Masjid.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Aligarh: AMU Alumnus, America based NRI industrialist and businessman Dr. Frank Islam has met in USA with founder of Art of Living and presently advocating out of court settlement of Ramjanambhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute. After meeting, Dr. Frank Islam happily commented that the personality of Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is truly charismatic. During his meeting with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Dr. Frank Islam held discussions with him on out of court settlement of Ramjanambhoomi–Babri masjid dispute. Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar emphasized upon interfaith dialogues must be held for the betterment of society. Though Dr. Frank Islam expressed his confidence on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar but said that he does not know how much success Sri Sri Ravi Shankar may have achieved in solving Ramjanambhoomi-Babri masjid dispute so far.
It may be recalled that Dr. Frank Islam has his own credibility among Indian Muslims who has been honoured with D.Litt degree by the Aligarh Muslim University. On the other hand Dr. Frank Islam has donated two million US Dollar to AMU for the construction of AMU management complex building. Dr. Frank Islam has been honoured in country and foreign countries also. Dr. Frank Islam originally belongs to Azamgarh and has established multi specialist clinic which is rendering meaningful services in the area.
(Source: aligarhmedia.com)
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : Muslim representatives on Friday urged the Supreme Court to refer the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue to a larger five-judge Constitution bench as the Hindu petitioner said the issue should be heard purely as a “property dispute”.
Appearing for main petitioner Mohammad Siddiqui, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said considering the “seriousness and importance” attached to resolution of the dispute among the two largest religious communities in the country and their “feelings and sentiments” attached thereto to the case, the matter should be heard by a larger bench.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for other original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad, opposed this, saying the case should be dealt as a property dispute and the issue of political or religious sensitivities “cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench”.
Salve told a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer that political and religious sensitivities “should be left outside the Supreme Court gates”.
Salve contended that people have “moved away from 1992” (yjr December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid) and the court has to decide the case “strictly on law” as it’s a simple property dispute case.
As per the prevalent practices and traditions of the Supreme Court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the apex court, instead of a two-judge bench, Salve added.
Appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, senior advocate K. Parasaran also opposed the matter being heard by a Constitution bench.
At the outset, advocate Ramachandaran said, the apex court on various occasion has transferred the important matters to Constitution bench and this case should too be heard by larger bench as it concerns issues which have a “grave public bearing”.
“The decision of the case has a vital bearing and impact on the social fabric of the county because tow major communities are involved.”
The present batch of matters “not only require interpretation of the Indian Constitution, but also relate to a nationally/considerably important subject matter” and as such the matters be referred to a larger bench” Ramachandran said.
The arguments remained inconclusive and the court posted the matter on May 15 for further hearing.
Earlier, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Siddiqui, picked holes in the 1994 top court’s judgment which, in one of its paragraphs, said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.
He said that the question to be decided by the court is “what is the meaning of mosque to the Muslims” and “do you take it as a gospel that a mosque is not essential to Muslims and Islam”.
The court has been hearing a batch of cross petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed 2.77 acres site between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.
The top court was moved by Siddiqui represented by his legal heirs, the Nirmohi Akhara, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, All India Hindu Mahasabha’s Swami Chakrapani, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Ramjanam Bhoomi Punardhar Samiti and others.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Supreme Court was on Friday told that a mosque will remain a place of worship even after it has been desecrated and destroyed through a “barbaric act.”
“A mosque will remain a place of worship even after it has been destroyed,” senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan told the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, hearing a batch of cross petitions challenging a 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suit.
“It is quite a different matter to say that an area has been acquired and quite another to say mosque is not a mosque forever,” Dhavan said.
Dhavan appeared for the main petitioner, Mohammad Siddiqui, now being represented by legal heirs.
The bench is hearing arguments on the plea to revisit 1994 top court judgment which had said that the mosque was not was not an essential part of Islamic religious practice and that namaz could be offered anywhere, even in open places.
Describing the December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid as a “barbaric act”, Dhavan said: “What was desecrated was a mosque and what court is being asked to is to protect the idols (of Ram Lalla).”
Telling the court that the government can acquire the place of worship, Dhavan said: “It is abundantly clear that a mosque should be treated as equal any temple” and “Ramjanmabhoomiu is equal to mosque”.
Referring to “two powerful Rath Yatras” led by senior BJP leader L.K. Advani, Dhavan told the bench that “there was strident, calculated and deliberate attempt to destroy Babri Masjid”.
Senior counsel K. Parasaran, appearing on the other side, said that the 1994 top court observation that a mosque was not an essential part of Islamic religious practice and namaz could be offered anywhere was in the context of acquisition proceedings.
At this, the bench said that if it decides to revisit the 1994 judgment, then it would be on the principle whether mosque was an integral part of Islamic religious practice.
In the last hearing of the matter on March 14, Dhavan had told the court that if the positrion in the 1994 judgement was to accepted then except for Makkah, Madinah and Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, rest of the mosques will be of no consequence to Muslims.
On the next hearing on April 5, Dhavan will address the court on what mosque means to Islam.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Interviews
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
By Kushagra Dixit and V.S. Chandrasekar,
New Delhi : Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who is of late involved in mediation on the Ayodhya issue, says the best solution to the festering Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is an out-of-court settlement under which the Muslims gift the land to the Hindus for building a grand Ram Temple.
The 61-year-old spiritual leader, who met leaders of both Sunni and Shia sects of the Muslim community recently, also says that he is not in touch with the government — and that it has nothing to do with his efforts.
Ravi Shankar, who has a global following, denies vehemently that he talked of “bloodshed” in case the Supreme Court rules the title dispute in favour of one community or the other.
“Because it’s Lord Ram’s birthplace, there is such a strong feeling connected with the place. And since it is not that important place for Muslims and (is) also in a place where there is conflict, namaaz is not acceptable. Anyway, it is not going to serve the purpose; and when it is not serving the purpose of the other community (Muslims), then, it should be gifted,” he told IANS in an interview.
Ravi Shankar said that if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Mandir then there will be heartburn. If it rules for the Masjid, there will agian be heartburn.
“So, in either case, there will be discord in society. I want to create a win-win situation, where both communities come together and respect for each is restored, where respect of each is honoured. That is the formula we are suggesting… why not do it?” he said.
The spiritual leader said he was hopeful that an out-of-court settlement could be reached because he has been talking to people in both the communities, and they both agree that there should be a settlement.
“On that only (was) the initiative mooted. It’s not that I jumped into it suddenly,” he said.
Asked if there were any deadlines for finding an amicable solution ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, he said, “No such deadline. I am just saying what would be the best for both communities. Nothing to do with elections, not at all. Only an amicable solution.”
Ravi Shankar acknowledged that the temple dispute was a polarising factor all over India and that is why there was a need for all communities to come together.
“It is more relevant to come together and build bridges — and this initiative will build bridges,” he said.
Asked about his meetings with leaders of the Shia and Sunni sects of the Muslim community, Ravi Shankar said that both the sects agree that they should settle the matter outside court.
“There is already a Shri Ram Temple existing there (at the disputed site). They all know that it cannot be removed. So, we should sit and talk,” he said.
Sunni scholar Maulana Salman Nadwi was expelled from the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on February 10 after he backed Ravi Shankar’s formula following a meeting with him — along with Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board chief Zufar Farooqui — at the Art of Living Bengaluru ashram. Ravi Shankar met Nadwi again in February in Lucknow.
On March 6, Ravi Shankar wrote to AIMPLB proposing an amicable solution where Muslims would gift the entire 2.77 acres of the disputed site to Hindus as a goodwill gesture and, in turn, Hindus would gift five acres of land near the site, to build a bigger mosque. The AIMPLB, however, had rejected Ravi Shankar’s proposal.
In a letter to the president and members of AIMPLB on March 6, Ravi Shankar spoke of “four options before the country” to resolve the dispute and discussed the possible outcomes of the Supreme Court’s verdict favouring one community over the other.
Referring to the first possibility of the court declaring that the site be given to the Hindus based on archaeological evidence that the temple existed long before the Masjid, Ravi Shankar said Muslims would have serious apprehensions about the legal system and lose faith in the judiciary. This could also lead to Muslim youth taking to violence.
Even though the Muslim Personal Law Board and other community leaders say that they will accept the verdict, in the long run the feeling that the court has done injustice will prevail for years.
If the Hindus lose the case and the land is gifted to Muslims for re-construction of the Babri Masjid, it would cause huge communal disturbance all over the country. “Winning this one acre of land, they would, however, permanently lose the goodwill of the majority community,” he said.
Ravi Shankar talked about the Allahabad High Court judgement allowing both a temple and mosque to be built there being upheld, and the “fourth option” of a temple through legislation, and said in the letter to AIMPLB leaders that “in all the four options, whether through the court or through the government, the results will be devastating for the nation at large and the Muslim community in particular”.
“The best solution, according to me, is an out-of-court settlement in which Muslim bodies come forward and gift one acre of land to the Hindus who, in turn, gift acres of land nearby to the Muslims, to build a better mosque. It is a win-win situation in which Muslims will not only gain the goodwill of 1,000 million Hindus, but it will also put this issue to rest once and for all.
“A palak nama (plaque) will recognise that this temple has been built with the cooperation of both the Hindus and Muslims. It will put to rest the issue for future generations and coming centuries,” he said in the letter.
Asked about his reported remarks on bloodshed, Ravi Shankar said, “I have never said that. It’s a distortion. I said that we don’t want a conflict in this country like what I have seen in Syria.”
(Kushagra Dixit can be reached at kushagra.d@ians.in and V.S Chandrasekar at chandru.v@ians.in)
—IANS
