Lucknow, Mar 18: Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board Chief Wasim Rizvi on Sunday urged Rahul Gandhi to propose the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya and Masjid-e-Aman in Lucknow. In connection with the demand, Rizvi has written a letter to the Congress President. Also Read - 'Goondaraj in UP': Opposition Targets Yogi Government After 8 Policemen Killed in Kanpur
Recalling Gandhi’s ‘temple run’ during Gujarat Assembly Elections, Rizvi asked him to take state his position on Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute. Also Read - 'Should've Asked PM to Speak': Maharashtra Minister Slams Sharad Pawar For Defending Centre Over Galwan Valley
Earlier in February, Rizvi stoked up a controversy while suggesting that Muslims who are against the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya “must go to Pakistan and Bangladesh” or “join ISIS in Syria”.”Those who are opposing the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya and want to build the Babri Mosque there… people having such fundamentalist mentality should go to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Such Muslims do not have any place in India (sic),” he said. Also Read - Congress Workers Ride Bicycles, Bullock and Horse Carts to Protest Fuel Hike, Pictures & Videos Go Viral
Adding further, he had said, “Those who want to spread Jehad in the name of the mosque must go and join the forces of Abu Baqr Baghdadi, the ISIS chief in Syria.”
Reacting to Rizvi’s remarks, Shia clerics demanded that he be arrested for trying to communalise the atmosphere.
The Supreme Court on March 14 dismissed the intervention application of 32 eminent persons in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, fixing March 23 as the next date of hearing.
The apex court rejected the application by 32 eminent persons, including Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen, Anil Dharkar and Teesta Setalvad. It also barred BJP leader Subramanian Swamy from intervening in the case.
The Allahabad HC had divided the 2.77 acre disputed land equally between three parties – deity Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara – in its 2010 judgment. It also expressed its inability to facilitate an outside settlement of the dispute.