The 51-member committee discussed in detail the high court verdict. The Muslim Law Board members had earlier made it clear that the high court verdict was not acceptable to it as it was based on faith and not on evidence.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) will go to the Supreme Court to challenge the Allahabad high court order in the Ayodhya case.
At a meeting presided over by board president Maulana Rabey Nadwi in Lucknow on Saturday, a resolution to this effect was passed unanimously by the AIMPLB.
“The AIMPLB executive committee considers it to be the right and obligation of the Indian Muslims to challenge the (high court) judgment in the apex court,” said
Mohammad Rahim Qureshi, the board’s assistant general secretary. He added the objective behind moving the Supreme Court was to “remove distortions introduced by the judgment in the basic values of the Constitution and established norms of jurisprudence”.
He said it was yet to be decided whether the AIMPLB will file the appeal as an independent party or intervene along with other parties to the Ayodhya title suits. The AIMPLB was not a party in any of the four suits decided by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court.
The board decision virtually eclipses all hopes of a negotiated settlement. Asked by reporters if the appeal in the apex court would mean an end to the dialogue to resolve the issue, Qureshi said, “We are yet to come across a concrete proposal from those who are conducting the talks… if we get one, we will consider it.”
He, however, added that the board would consider a proposal only if it satisfies the constitutional provisions, is right as per the Shariat (Islamic law) and upholds the dignity of the Muslim community. He clarified that Hashim Ansari, the oldest petitioner in the case, was conducting a dialogue in his “individual capacity” and that the board had nothing do with his efforts.
Senior advocate YH Muchala, convener of the AIMPLB legal cell, was more vocal in his criticism of the high court judgment. “We respect Lord Ram and we also have no objection to the co-existence of a temple and a mosque at the same place… But this judgment is according to the rule of faith rather than the rule of law… Hard facts and evidence have been ignored… The judges are not supposed to work out a settlement,” he said.
Claiming that the basic principles of secularism had been sacrificed, he added, “If this goes unchallenged, then the minorities would be left totally and perpetually at the mercy of the majority.
“The case has been decided as per the ways of one religion even though the belief that the place was the birthplace of Lord Ram is not backed by sufficient antiquity… This is a violation of equality as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution,” Muchala asserted.
AIMPLB spokesman Qasim Rasool Iliyas made it clear that the disputed site was a mosque where namaz was being offered and, as such, there could be no compromise on that. “We can’t consider any proposal that involves moving the mosque from its present site,” he said.
Zafaryab Jilani, a senior AIMPLB member and counsel for the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, said there was no evidence of the mosque having been constructed after demolition of a temple in Ayodhya. “The ASI has never said that anywhere in its report (after excavations in 2003),” he said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}