Breaking News
Home / Blog / After The Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict, Time for Introspection and Reconciliation for Indian Muslims

After The Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict, Time for Introspection and Reconciliation for Indian Muslims

Ahead of the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, prominent Muslim organisations had resolved to “maintain peace and harmony at all cost, whatsoever the verdict maybe.” Muslim intellectuals who had
called for an out-of-court settlement in the protracted dispute to make both
Hindus and Muslims happy, appealed to hand over the land to the Hindus for the sake of lasting peace in the country.

Nearly all Muslim organisations had vowed
to abide by the SC judgment the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed land. But
now when India’s top court gives Hindus the site on which the Babri masjid
stood for close to five centuries, several Sunni leaders and clerics seem to
waver between ‘respect’ and ‘dissatisfaction’ at the Supreme Court verdict.
They say that while they respect the SC verdict, they are ‘unhappy’ and can no
longer trust a court which favours ‘faith over merit’. Some of them have even
declared the Ayodhya judgment as a clear ‘injustice’. For instance— Maulana
Syed Ather Ali, executive committee member of the All India Personal Law Board,
Maulana Burhanuddin Qasmi, head of Mumbai’s MarkazulMa’arif Education and
Research Centre and Maulana Shoaib Koti, member of the Dar-ul-Qaza run by the
Iqra Foundation are some of those clerics who are of the same view.

In fact, a
large number of Sunni Muslim leaders who were expected to welcome the judgment
with a big heart, in the case of it being both favourable and unfavourable,
express their ‘unhappiness’ over the loss of the Babri land. Some of them had
even proposed that they would be willing to gift the land to Hindus if the
verdict comes in their favour, and in doing this, they would not put any
condition on the other side. But this gesture of pure goodwill which might have
been a turning point in Hindu-Muslim relations in India, is no longer seen
after the SC verdict in favour of the Hindu temple. This can be gauged from the
mood of several Sunni Islamic clerics and leaders in India, after the Supreme
Court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute case. They feel that the highest
court has let them down. For instance—All India Muslim Personal Law Board
(AIMPLB) has categorically turned down the decision, though they have decided
not to file the review petition.

On the
other hand, some members of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM), the
Mumbai-based Raza Academy, Anjuman-I-Islam, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) and some
custodians of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya Dargah attended a meeting with India’s
National Security Adviser Ajit Doval at his residence. A joint statement has
been issued by Mr. Doval and the eminent Muslim leaders, including members of
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which said, “Those attending the meeting were alive
to the fact that certain anti-national and hostile elements, both within and
outside the country, may attempt to exploit the situation to harm our national
interest.”

It was
patently clear that even if the Muslim side had won the case, there are always
certain elements in the Indian society who would use it to serve their
political interests, thereby leading to escalation of communal tensions.
Therefore, the leaders in this meeting resolved to honour the decision of the
Supreme Court and appealed to all countrymen to abide by the SC verdict,
emphasizing that “the national interest overrides all other considerations.

But while
the leaders who participated in this meeting, exhibited a sense of
responsibility, sensitivity and restraint in accepting the verdict, the Jamiat
Ulama-i-Hind (JUH), one of the largest Muslim organisations, has expressed
disagreement with the verdict and termed the ruling “unjust” and said it was in
“utter disregard to the truth and evidence”. Therefore, it did not accept the
invitation to participate in this meeting. It is worth mentioning the Jamiat
was in the forefront in calling for peace and full support and respect for the
impending SC verdict. JUH had also demanded the deployment of central
paramilitary forces to give “more assurance to the community”.

Thus, there
have emerged two viewpoints in the Indian Muslim leadership on the SC judgment
on Ayodhya. One calls for complete respect and unconditional support for the
verdict and the other expresses dissatisfaction without challenging the verdict
outright.

The
theological contention of the latter is that, a structure once a Masjid is
always a Masjid. It’s not just the structure according to the Islamic Shariat,
but also the land on which it stands. For them, the site where the Babri Masjid
stood is of universal sanctity and remains holy for eternity. But the clerics
of this view fail to understand how a controversial structure can be the
appropriate space for Islamic worship. This contention cannot be justified even
by the Islamic Shariah, which is based on the attainment of five chief noble
objectives, on top of which is Hifz Al-Nafs (protection of life).

According
to Imam al-Shatibi, the legal ends of Islamic law “are the benefits
intended by the law: the attainment of good, welfare, advantage, benefits and
warding off evil, injury, loss of the creatures”.

It is worth
mentioning that numerous rulings of Islamic Sharia are changed or concessions
in Islamic laws are granted according to changing circumstances of the time and
thereby the door of easiness and concession is always open for Muslim Ummah of
every age. The basis of changes in such rulings, according to majority of
Muslim jurists, revolves around the seven fundamental principles of Islamic
Jurisprudence. They are 1) Zaruriyat (absolute necessities), 2) Hajat
(necessity), 3) Daf’e Haraj (removing difficulty), 4) ‘Urf (recurring
practices of a large number of Muslims), 5) Maslahah (interest/benefit),
6) Izala Al-Fasad (elimination of corruption), 7) Umum-E-Balwa.

Absolute
necessities (Zaruriyat) are classified in what preserves one’s faith
(din), soul (Nafs), wealth (Maal), mind (Aql) and
offspring (Nasl). Some jurists add the preservation of honour to these five
popular necessities. Preservation of these necessities is the objective of
Islamic Sharia. So in the context of SC’s judgment on Babri Masjid-Ram Janam
Bhoomi, even if we believe that a land once a Masjid is always a Masjid, we
will still have to take into consideration the objective of Islamic Sharia
which preserves one’s life, removes difficulty, eliminates corruption and
ensures social interest. This will be in line with the Fiqhi maxim “Necessities
cause the prohibited things to be permissible”, (الضرورات تبيح
المحظورات)”. That means we must accept SC judgment which, as
per some opinions, is a resolution and in conformity with the objective of
Islam in preserving lives of Indian civilians. If this resolution is not
accepted, there might occur corruption and loss of lives and thereby a
violation of objectives of Islam.

URL:  http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/new-age-islam-special-correspondent/after-the-supreme-court-ayodhya-verdict,-time-for-introspection-and-reconciliation-for-indian-muslims/d/120259

New Age
Islam
Islam OnlineIslamic
Website
African Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism

Check Also

अल्‍लाह की रहमत और मेहरबानी

कयामत के दिन का जिक्र करते हुए कुरान कहता है, ‘अपनी किताब पढ़ ले, आज …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *