By Abdul Hameed, TwoCircles.net,
Mumbai: Who is the owner of the Babri Masjid land is a court case for long time. On the 16th anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition TwoCircles.net talked to common Muslims. Majority of them favour out-of-court solution to the land dispute. Some will accept only court order even if it goes against them.
Ahmad Kamal, a retired professor form Bandra West, Mumbai said, 'Leave it as it is because if either Hindus or Muslims demand a mosque or temple to be built there it can inflame patience and destroy communal harmony.'
'The controversial land can be divided into two parts and each half should be given to both Hindus and Muslims,' says Muhammad Qasim, assistant accountant of Pharos Education Foundation, Millat Nagar, Andheri when asked about the matter.
But Muhammad Asjad, of Vasai Road in Thane says, 'If we leave the mosque and do not try to achieve it may be tomorrow the Hindu elements claim the same thing about our other mosques such as Geyanwapi mosque in Varansi.'
'It is BJP that does not let the matter settle because if it happens it will find itself having no political issue while campaigning for the elections to allure the Hindu voters towards it,' opines Muhammad Akbar, a businessman in Kausa Mumbara, Thane.
Naseemul Haq Ma'roofi, Imam and teacher in Darul Uloom Imdadia, Bhendi Bazar, Mumbai-1 says, 'This is nothing but a political issue. It would be better if the political people make a judgment about it. He also said that in the matter common Muslims should follow their Ulama whatever the decision they make about it.'
There are some others who instead of sharing their suggestions in the matter seem to prefer the judicial verdict. They say that whatever the court decides in the matter will be acceptable to them and should be welcomed by Muslims and Hindus alike. One who goes against it will be punished.
Aftab Alam, a businessman in Kausa Mumbara, said, 'Whatever the court decides Muslims should accept it.
'I will agree with whatever decision the court will issue. If it is proved that the mosque was built after destroying a temple we are ready to let a temple be built on the spot,' says Jamal Husain, an engineer of Mumbara.
But Akbar is afraid that the court verdict may be biased as there are the judges who bear a special kind of mentality. He cited an example of Nanavati report. 'Even if the court decides that the land was once a temple then also I will have a valid reason not to accept the verdict. The land is but of a mosque; a true Muslim cannot build a mosque in place of a temple. See today also even poorer of the poor Muslims if they want to build a mosque they purchase the land first by collecting donations. How it was possible that a pious Muslim emperor could have built a mosque on the place of temple. And suppose that any Muslim emperor had done so and they were interested in this then all the temples in India would have turned into mosques during the long periods of Muslim rule in India,' he says emphasizing.
'The verdict of the court must be acceptable to both the Hindus and the Muslims because the court will issue its verdict in the light of solid evidences. If any one of them does not accept it then a case of insulting the court should be initiated against him. Therefore if the court says that there was a temple on the spot we will give it to Hindus. But Muslims should try their best to provide as many evidences in the case as possible,' says a calm Ateequr Rahman Siddiqi adding 'if the land can be opened for Hindus for Darshan then why it cannot be opened for Muslims for at least offering Juma prayer? Supreme Court should close it for both the Hindus and the Muslims alike.'
Most of the opinions have an appeal to both the government and the court. If the land is that of a mosque, and of course it is, then it should be given back to Muslims. But it requires something like authority that can compel the government to turn its attention towards sincerely finding out a solution to it and not to prolong the matter anymore. 'Muslims must be united politically and then compel the government to fulfill their demands or see the rule collapsed because of them having withdrawn the support' says Muhammad Akbar who finds Aftab Alam and Jamal Husain supporting his view. Jamal adds: 'Agitation on national level should be done so that Muslims can get their mosque built in Ayodhya.'
On the other hand Maulana Jalaludding Faizi believes that Muslims had to see the black day of demolition of Babri Masjid due to their bad deeds and negligence in obeying the commandments of Allah and His messenger. Therefore the solution lies only in turning to Allah completely. 'The demolition of the mosque was the result that Muslims did not practice Islam thoroughly. Though Babri mosque was there they did not attend for the prayers regularly. That is why the Hindus succeeded to dominate the mosque. Although the Eidgah in Mathura and Geyanwapi mosque in Varansi is located in a Hindu dominated area, the Hindus do not dare to do the same with these worship places because the Muslims over there are punctual in attending the mosque in every prayer,' he says adding that one who advises that Muslims should agree on the philosophy of 'half land is for mosque and the remaining half for temple' they should not be counted among true believers. How can a person having faith in Islam say that the land endowed for a mosque should be allotted for a temple?
When TwoCircles.net consulted Qazi Muhammad Zakariya Qamar he had a unique idea. 'The land is endowed (waqf) for a mosque. Therefore, its glory will remain till the Final Day. But since there is no Muslim population near the mosque, prayers cannot be offered over there, the aim for which the mosques are built. Therefore Muslims had better not to insist on re-building the mosque. The government should put a boundary around the particular part of the land and thereby protect it. If it is lying without a mosque on it, it does not matter but there should not be any other building built over there.' Yet it remains to be seen whether it is as per the Islamic shari'ah.
Mufti As'adullah Qasmi, a shari'ah advisor in Parsoli Corporation Limited when asked whether it would be suitable to let the land remain unused with no mosque nor temple on it, he said, 'As per the Shari'ah it is not allowed because the land is that of Waqf, so it should be used for a mosque. As for historical proofs, so in this regard only strong evidences will be acceptable. It is a matter of religion wherein hollow proofs are not considered.'
No comments:
Post a Comment