The JuH did not rule out the possibility of going for a review of the Supreme Court verdict.
New Delhi: Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani addresses a press conference regarding the construction of a mosque following the Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict, in New Delhi on Nov 14, 2019. (File Photo: IANS)
Two days before the crucial meeting of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board takes place to discuss the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JuH), a key Muslim litigant in the Ayodhya title suit, has decided not to accept the five-acre alternative land for building a mosque.
At its working committee meeting in Delhi on Thursday, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JuH) said that nothing would be acceptable as an ‘alternative’ to a mosque — be it money or land.
The JuH did not rule out the possibility of going for a review of the Supreme Court verdict.
Advertisement
JuH president Arshad Madani said that a five-member fact-finding committee will seek legal opinion on the matter.
Uttar Pradesh JuH president Ashhad Rashidi, who was present in the meeting, said: “Two crucial decisions were taken in the working committee meeting. One was related to the five-acre alternative land for a mosque and the other was the possibility of filing a review plea.”
“The working committee unanimously decided there can be no ‘badal’ (alternative) of a mosque for anything in the world — neither money nor land. It will not be right for any Muslim outfit to accept barter,” said Rashidi.
The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind was founded in 1919 and is one of the most influential and financially sustainable Muslim organisations. It played an active role in the Khilafat movement and freedom struggle though it later opposed Partition.
Another Muslim litigant Mohammad Umar has already announced that he will file a review petition, provided the AIMPLB provides him legal support.
Zafaryab Jilani, convener of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) and a counsel for the Sunni Central Waqf Board, has already said that he is ‘not satisfied’ with the SC apex court.
Advertisement
