Various findings recorded in the judgement are in favour of the Muslim parties. The contentions raised by the Muslims parties, such as the Mosque being constructed in 1528 and Namaz being offered in the Mosque till December 1949, have been accepted. The Honourable Court has also accepted the fact that the Masjid/building was used as a Mosque after 1856 till 1949. The Honourable Court has accepted that the idol of Lord Ram was placed inside the Mosque on the intervening night of the 22nd - 23rd December 1949. The Honourable Court has further accepted our contentions that neither the Report of ASI nor Faith, can be the basis to decide a Title Suit.
Further, it has also been held that the very spot or vicinity of land on which Lord Ram was claimed to have been born has no distinct legal personality.
Further, our contention that even the Traveller’s account cannot be the basis to decide Title has also been upheld by the Honourable Court. These contentions have been consistent throughout the proceedings including the fact that Isha Namaz was also offered in the building on the night of 22nd December 1949.
The Nirmohi Akhara in its Suits filed in 1885 and 1941 has accepted the existence of the Mosque at the site.
Its claim in the said Suits/Cases was that the Chabootra in the outer courtyard of the Mosque was the birthplace of Lord Ram.
In as late as 1989, for the first time, in the Suit filed on behalf of Lord Ram Lalla and the Janambhoomi itself, it was claimed that Lord Ram was born exactly below the central dome of the Mosque. Up until 1989, no Hindu Party had made the claim of Lord Ram having taken birth exactly below the central dome of the Mosque.
With anguish we state that in this historical background, where the Idol of Lord Ram was placed inside the Mosque in 1949 (being a criminal action), no effective legal proceeding has taken place. History has recently witnessed the demolition of the Mosque in 1992. The Board took all effective steps in placing all the documentary and oral evidence to prove the above facts and contested the case with sincerity and diligence. The effort put in to contest the case effectively before the Honourable Supreme Court may be discerned by the sheer volume of the record of the case.
Despite all of the above, the conclusion of the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court has gone against us and the land of the Babri Masjid has been given for the Temple by exercising extraordinary discretionary powers of the Honourable Supreme Court which is painful. We are taken by surprise with the final conclusion. However, the Board will examine the judgement in detail and take appropriate decision as to whether a Review Petition ought to be filed. We appeal to the Muslim community at large, not to be disappointed and to exercise restraint from any action which may effect the peace and harmony of the country.
A Mosque is the house of Allah and its protection is pious duty of Muslims and the Board has tried to fulfil the same. You may wait for further views of the Board on the issue.
Dr Vaquer Udain Latifi
Office secretary AIMPLB
Darul Ihsan Media Desk