The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) reiterated its stand in 'Hyderabad Declaration' passed on the third and final day of its 26th plenary here.
"Babri Masjid is an essential part of faith in Islam and Muslims can never abdicate the Masjid nor they can exchange land for Masjid or gift the Masjid land. Babri Masjid is a Masjid and it shall remain a Masjid till eternity," said a statement released by the board.
This assumed significance as an executive member of the board, Maulana Salman Hussaini Nadvi had mooted a formula after meeting Hindu leader Sri Sri Ravishankar on Friday that the land on which Babri Masjid stood till December 6, 1992, be given for building Ram temple. He suggested that an alternate land be allocated for construction of a mosque and an Islamic university.
Facing flak from board members for his controversial formula against the board's stand, Nadvi did not attend the plenary on the second day Saturday and announced his "disassociation" from the board. The board on Sunday accepted his "disassociation" and announced that he is no longer a member.
"By demolishing Babri Masjid, it never loses its identity as a masjid. And according to Shariah, it always remains a Masjid," said the statement read out by the board's executive member Kalam Faruqui at a news conference.
"Without any doubt, we make it clear that the struggle for the reconstruction of Babri Masjid continues and the appeal in Supreme Court is being fought rigorously with all the resources available at the disposal of the Board. The country's topmost lawyers are appearing on behalf of the Muslims and we believe that the Almighty Allah will make us successful in the Supreme Court," it added.
The Board announced after its executive meeting here on Friday night that there is no change in its stand that it is a mosque and when a mosque is constructed at a place, it remains a mosque till "qayamat" (the final judgement).
The land dedicated for mosque can't be sold, gifted or in any way alienated, it said in a statement.
The Board said it never rejected the offers of conciliation by Hindu religious leaders and urged them to come forward with justifiable and honourable settlement. "However, they always had one answer that Muslims should unilaterally give up the mosque but Muslims can't do this because giving a mosque for worship of anyone other than Allah is 'haram' and there is no scope for this in Shariat. If Muslims do this they will be accountable to Allah," said the statement released in Urdu.
"The matter is in court. Board has taken a stand that it will accept the court verdict. The matter being heard in the court is not of belief but a matter of the right of ownership and hence there is hope that the verdict will be in line with the stand taken by Muslims. If this happens, this will neither be victory of anybody nor defeat of anybody. This will be the victory of justice," said the statement read out by Board Secretary Umrain Mahfooz Rahmani.
Board's executive member and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi read out the statement in English.
"All the attempts to negotiate the settlements in past have been infructuous and there is no proposal offering settlement without sacrificing the basic tent has ever been put before the board," it said.
The Board reiterated its resolutions passed in 1990 and 1993. The announcement came after over four-hour long meeting of the executive on the first day of the three-day plenary.
Salman Nadvi also attended the meeting presided over by the Board president Maulana Rabey Hasani Nadvi.
After a meeting with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Salman Nadvi reportedly favoured construction of Ram Mandir at the disputed site in Ayodhya. He also reported to have said that the mosque canAbe built on an alternative land near the disputed site.
Salman Nadvi gave a clarification in the Board's executive meeting about his proposal. Sources said he was isolated over the issue in the meeting attended by majority of 50 executive members.
Owaisi told the media that the meeting unanimously reiterated its stand. He, however, declined to answer any queries.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar also said if all 'Qazis' can be asked to include this condition at the time of marriage.
"Is it possible that Muslim women are given an option to say 'no' to triple talaq at the time of execution of nikahnama," asked the bench also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and Abdul Nazeer
While seeking response from former Union Minister and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing AIMPLB, the bench said, "Don't infer anything from our side."
Today is the fifth day of the hearing on a clutch of petitions challenging triple talaq, polygamy and 'nikah halala' which is going on before a bench comprising members of different religious communities including Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Hindu and Muslim.
Yesterday, the law board had equated the issue of triple talaq with the belief that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya, saying these were matters of faith and cannot be tested on grounds of constitutional morality.
A bench of Justice S.A. Bobde and S. Abdul Nazeer asked if Right to Equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution could be invoked by an individual against another individual - a non-state actor.
"All those present in the mosque are individuals and they are not cast in concrete. Where the State comes here? Is mosque a State, is temple a State, is Church a State?" Justice Bobde asked.
An unimpressed court said that it may examine the issue in the light of its verdict in the Sabarimala case where the court lifted the bar on the centuries old ban on the entry of menstruating women in the age group of 10 to 50 years in Sabarimala temple.
The court had held the prohibition on the entry of menstruating women as unconstitutional.
"We may hear you because of our judgment in Sabarimala case. We don't think you are giving satisfactory answers to our question," Justice Bobde said issuing notice on the petition.
As lawyer Dubey urged that the bar on the entry of Muslim women in mosque was discriminatory, Justice Bobde said: "You are reading Article 14 of the Constitution which we have not read". They asked the lawyer to read it.
"Can you invoke Article 14 asserting equality of treatment against another citizen?" Justice Bobde asked pointing that Article 14 says that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India".
In a series of posers, the court inquired about the prevailing practices on the entry of women in mosques abroad.
As lawyer Ashutosh Dube, appearing for the petitioner Yasmeen Zuber Ahmed Peerzade, said that women are permitted in Mecca, Justice Nazeer said that the congregation of men and women were separate.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its verdict before November 17, the day Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi retires.
AIMPLB member Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali has said that the Supreme Court decision should be honoured and accepted by all.
He has asked Muslims not to indulge in any protest or slogan shouting if the verdict does not meet their expectations.
"There should be no attempt to vitiate the atmosphere in the country and caution must be exercised on the social media too. There is no need for any Muslims to be afraid or apprehensive of the consequences," he said.
Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad also said that the court decision would be acceptable to all and there should be no attempts by any party to disturb peace in the country.
"We respect the constitution and the law and will abide by the court verdict. Those who try to disturb peace cannot be termed as true followers of Islam," he added.
A number of Muslim clerics have been appealing for peace and restrain as the date of the Supreme Court verdict draws near.
"The land of the mosque belongs to Allah and under Sharia law, it cannot be given to anybody," AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani told reporters after a meeting of the board here.
"The board has also categorically refused to take five-acre land in Ayodhya in lieu of the mosque. The board is of the view that there cannot be an alternative to the mosque," he added.
Settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the Supreme Court, in its verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title case on November 9, said the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, who was one of the three litigants in the case.
The five-judge Constitution bench also directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya to build a mosque.
"We will not file any review petition," said Zufar Faruqi, chairman of the board, while talking to a news channel.
He said: "We had said on November 9 when the verdict was announced that we will accept the court decision. We are not going with the AIMPLB on this issue."
Replying to a question, Faruqi said: "We cannot say why the AIMPLB is going for a review petition. We had always said that we would accept the decision of the Supreme Court and we are following our stand."
Another Babri litigant Iqbal Ansari has also said that he would not file or support a review petition.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board had said on Sunday that the Supreme Court verdict was self-contradictory and they would file a review petition.
The three parties who have given their consent for the legal drill are Haji Mehboob, Maulana Hizbullah and the two sons of late Haji Abdul Ahad (one of the first Muslim litigants), Haji Asad Ahmad and Hafiz Rizwan.
While the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, another party to the dispute, said it would separately file a review plea.
He also said that for the Muslims the important issue is not just "Babri (mosque) but barabri (equality)" in the areas of education and economic and social upliftment.
In an interview to PTI, Naqvi said that in a democracy everyone has a right to have an opinion and liberty to approach courts.
However, he asserted that in an ideal scenario attempts should not be made to entangle the decades-old complex issue which has been solved by a unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court.
"All sections of the society have welcomed and respected the Supreme Court verdict. But if some people are unable to digest the fact that the unity has been strengthened after this verdict, it is sad," he said.
Sources in the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind said last week that the draft of the review petition against Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict is ready and the plea will be filed by them on December 3 or 4.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has also said the review petition will be filed before December 9.
Slamming the AIMPLB and the Jamiat, Naqvi said, "They are trying to create an atmosphere of division and confrontation which will not be accepted by any society."
"These isolated voices cannot be that of the whole society. The feeling of all sections of the society is that this matter has been settled by the court and we should now accept it and move forward," he said.
"If they (AIMPLB and Jamiat) were so serious why did they not agree to a compromise when the court earlier had asked them to solve the matter through dialogue," the senior BJP leader said.
The Minority Affairs Minister said both the Muslim side and the Hindu side had said prior to the Supreme Court verdict that it would be acceptable to them.
"Even at the meeting that was held at my house where representatives from various sections of the society were present, it was said in one voice that whatever be the verdict it will be accepted and honoured," he said.
As part of the RSS and the BJP's efforts to reach out to Muslims ahead of the Ayodhya verdict, a meeting with the community's clerics, academics and prominent persons was organised at Naqvi's residence ahead of the verdict, with participants stressing on maintaining social harmony and unity.
"Initially they (AIMPLB and Jamiat) accepted and honoured the verdict but I don't know what is the reason and what divine enlightenment they got, that they are taking an opposite stand to what they had taken," he said.
On whether this could open a fresh chapter in the dispute, he said those who want to "open a chapter will be able to do it only in their homes" as the society and the country will not accept it and for them, the matter is closed.
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, said the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, who was one of the three litigants.
The five-judge Constitution bench also directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya to build a mosque.
Asked if the Muslim side should accept the 5-acre land, Naqvi said he cannot comment on it as it was a court issue.
"It is up to the parties (in the case who have been given the land) whether to accept it or not. It depends on them. As far as Ayodhya is concerned there are a number of mosques there," he said.
On some sections of the Muslim community expressing disappointment with the Supreme Court decision, Naqvi said this was a civil suit in which a decision has been made and it is binding on the concerned parties.
"This issue should not be seen as Hindu vs Muslim," he asserted.
Naqvi also hit out at the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi for his remarks that Supreme Court is not "infallible", saying this country runs on Constitution and not on anybody's whims and fancies.
"This country runs on Constitution, on the law. Nobody can apply his own law and do a postmortem of the verdict," he said, hitting out at Owaisi.
Both AIMPLB and Jamiat are expected to file a review petition this week even as the Sunni Central Waqf Board decided on Tuesday that it would not do so. The Waqf board also said it was yet to take a call on whether to accept a five-acre alternative plot for a mosque.
The Board has filed an application opposing the PIL filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenged the validity of practices of polygamy and 'nikah halala' among Muslims.
"A member of a religious denomination belonging to that faith, in the event of any violation of their fundamental rights, only to the extent of a threat of life and liberty, may be permitted to seek the protection of the court and determine the issues of faith arising there from," said the application by the board, a registered society of Islamic clerics and scholars.
Upadhyay's petition has relied upon the top court verdict declaring instant triple talaq as void ab initio, and also its verdict on the right to privacy.
The application also contended that personal laws do not derive their validity on the ground that they have been passed or made by legislature or other competent authority. The Board insists the foundational sources of personal law are their respective scriptural texts.
"The Mohammedan Law is founded essentially on the Holy Koran and the Hadith of the Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) and thus it cannot fall within the purview of the expression laws of force, as mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution, and hence its validity cannot be tested on a challenge based on Part III of the Constitution," it held.
The Board also cited its view on the Uniform Civil Code, saying that Article 44 in the Constitution, which talked about having a common law for the entire country, was "only a directive principle of state policy and is not enforceable". According to the application, the top court has already dealt with the issue of polygamy in 1997 and declined to issue any directive at that point in time.
The petition by Upadhyay has claimed such practices violate Muslim women's right to live with dignity and their privacy.
The Board has now claimed these practices may not fall under the purview of the "law in force". It has also sought top court's permission to present its arguments when this petition is listed for hearing.
(IANS)
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by a Maharashtra-based Muslim couple demanding that women should be allowed to "worship in all mosques" and cited discrimination against them currently in practice at various mosques.
The issue will also be taken up by a nine-judge bench constituted to examine the legal question associated with the discrimination against women in connection with their entry into various religious places, which includes Sabarimala temple.
The Board in its response said, "The present respondent (AIMPLB) has taken a stand, as per Islamic texts, that entry of woman into mosque for namaz is permitted. Any other 'fatwa' to this effect may be ignored."
However, the Board also contended that the sanctity of 'fatwa' is an opinion based upon religious texts, doctrine and their interpretation and has no statutory force, and the court has no jurisdiction to restrain 'fatwa'.
"In case, if some believer of Islam is of the opinion that he/she needs religious opinion/fatwa, based upon interpretations of religious texts, then delivering of 'fatwa' on that issue cannot be restrained by judicial order of this court as the same shall directly hit the right and freedom of religious belief of an individual", said the Board in the affidavit.
In October 2019, the apex court had issued notice on the plea of Yasmeen Zuber Ahmad Peerzade and Zuber Ahmad Nazir Peerzade, who contended restrictions on entry of Muslim women in mosques across the country were unconstitutional and violates fundamental right to life, equality and gender justice.
The plea sought direction to the government authorities and Muslim bodies to allow entry of Muslim women into mosques to offer namaz there. The plea also contended that in mosques where women are allowed, there should be no segregation -- separate entry, exit or a separate praying area.
The Board said it does not want to comment on any contrary religious opinion to this effect.
"Islam has not made it obligatory on Muslim women to join congregational prayer nor is it obligatory for woman to offer Friday namaz in congregation though it is so on Muslim men. The Muslim woman is differently placed because as per doctrines of Islam, she is entitled to the same religious reward for praying as per her option either in masjid or at home", said the affidavit.
However, it said the practice of religion on the places of worship are purely private bodies regulated by 'Muttawalis' of the Mosques. We being body of experts, without any state powers, can only issue advisory opinion, based on Islam.
"The answering Respondent (AIMPLB), and this court for that matter, cannot enter into the arena of detailed arrangements of a religious place, which is completely privately managed entity for religious practices of believers in a particular religion", contended the Board.
(IANS)