[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 34] : Legality Of Mosque Construction Should Not Be Tested On Theology Of The Quran, Argues Muslim Parties

Day 34 of the Ayodhya hearing saw Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade resuming his submissions on behalf of Muslim parties on the question of Res Judicata. He stated that in the 1885 suit, filed by Mahant Raghubar Das, only a part of the land was claimed but now the entire place is being claimed. The question the court must look into is whether it was acceptable that the Mahant was representing the entire Hindu community or not. Additionally, he submitted, that it must be seen whether Muslims can claim title. To establish that he urged that there was a mosque there, which is undisputed, and a small temple in the chabutra. The existence of the mosque was accepted, which did not require to be proved since it was implicit in the judgment. This, said Naphade, was also reflected in the report of the Judicial Commissioner, which stated that Hindus are trying to expand their reach. Upon going back to his argument about who the Mahant represented through his suit in 1885, Justice Bobde stated that there was no claim by Hindus or Nirmohi Akhara that he (the Mahant) represented them. "Even he does not claim that he represents the entire Hndu community...Second, he does not even claim that he represents Nirmohi Akhara", he said. Naphade's argument was that by claiming to be the Mahant of a place of worship, he becomes the legal representative of the Math, as well a representative of all Hindus. "Law is law. Mahant represents who? He represents the Math", he asserted. Further, he is a spiritual successor and it is not an ordinary succession like father and son. Mahant is for the group of hindus. So he represents them. Moving on, Naphade argued that they had said that they have a temple and they have a right to construct. Their position doesn't change. Earlier the plaintiff had no occasion to claim the entire property. It was open for Hindus to lay claim over entire land. Therefore, concluded Naphade that Constructive res judicata is applicable. He concluded his arguments by touching upon estoppel, saying even estoppel was attracted in this case. Thereafter, Advocate Md. Nizam Pasha commenced his arguments for another Muslim party, Misbahuddeen. His submissions were based on countering two issues- 1) Mosque could not have been constructed without destroying a temple 2) The structure did not meet the requirements of a mosque Cautioning the bench from considering the theological aspects of the case, Pasha said "the Court should refrain from delving into the theological aspect, as it may be absurd...(for example) Nirmohi means without moh, moh means illusion. So theologically, they should not have any attachment to property. But they still claim the property. What I mean to say is that we should stick to basing it on legal aspects." Addressing the question regarding the building of a mosque by Babur, Pasha submitted that at the time of building the mosque Babur did not answer to any higher authority. Verifying whether his actions were valid according to the Quran would be theological. He became sovereign after defeating another Muslim ruler, Ibrahim Lodhi. However "today we have moved so far from what a sovereign was in those days...In conquests and wars, Muslims have not followed the tenets of the Quran, that one Muslim cannot kill another. We cannot depend on theology", argued Pasha. He further stated that when Babur performed those actions, he was the sovereign. It was a time when the Constitution was not in existence and the law was what the sovereign declared to be law. Testing his actions against Quranic law would be incorrect to assess the legality of his actions urged Pasha. Justice Bobde interjected at this point and said, "we are not here to see if Babur was a sinner. We are here to see if Babur followed the law on the secular use of property. Was he subject to any law?" Nizam Pasha responded saying that it cannot be assumed that Sharia law was the law of the land at the time of Babur, which was not followed by him, and conclude that what he did (building Babri Masjid from the spoils of war) was wrong. Whether the structure was a mosque or not should be dealt as per the law of the land in those days, he argued. The argument that the Quran was not the law recognized by the sovereign when Babur built the mosque, and that it could only be used to test his actions on a moral scale but not a legal one, Pasha seemed to use the argument that it was a sin in Islam to accept a mosque that was built where a temple used to be and differentiate it from the legality of that action. "It's futile to fix morality in the conquests, wars and spoils of war of the past centuries", he added and further submitted that once title is proved, the governance of wakf will be based on wakf law. Before the bench rose for lunch, senior advocate, on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman, reinforced their stand that they were not interested in an outcome through mediation proceedings. The bench again stated that they could take up the matter ...

[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 34] : Legality Of Mosque Construction Should Not Be Tested On Theology Of The Quran, Argues Muslim Parties

Nilashish Chaudhary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nilashish Chaudhary

[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 34] : Legality Of Mosque Construction Should Not Be Tested On Theology Of The Quran, Argues Muslim Parties

Nilashish Chaudhary

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nilashish Chaudhary

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers