New Delhi: Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JuH), a key Muslim litigant, in the Ayodhya land dispute case on Thursday decided at its working committee meeting in Delhi to not accept the alternate five-acre land for building a mosque as mandated by the Supreme Court in its judgement in the decades-long case, on November 9.Also Read - Shia Central Waqf Board Chairman Wasim Rizvi Announces Rs 51,000 Donation For Ram Temple in Ayodhya
A five-judge bench of the top court had, Saturday last, given the sole ownership of the disputed site to the Hindu side, rejecting respective claims of ownership by the Shia Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. Also Read - Devotees Deposit Bricks For Construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya
On Thursday, at the working committee meeting also did not rule out appealing against the SC ruling and further urged the Shia Board, which has already announced that it will not seek a review, to take back its decision. In addition, the Jamiat also decided that a five-member fact-finding committee would seek legal opinion on the issue. Also Read - Include Amit Shah and Adityanath in Ayodhya Trust, Urges VHP
In a press briefing after the meeting, Ashhad Rashidi, who attended the meeting said that a unanimous decision had been taken that since there can no alternative to a mosque, it will not be right for any Muslim body to accept, what Rashidi called, a ‘barter.’
The working committee meeting of the JuH came just two days before the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which expressed its unhappiness at the judgement, meets to discuss its next course of action.
The apex court’s five-acre alternate land ruling has invited particular criticism from Muslim scholars as well as activists. AIMIM chief Aasaduddin Owaisi, speaking to media hours after the verdict, had called the offer an ‘insult to Muslims, adding that the Muslims were not ‘begging’ for anything. He had further alleged that the verdict showed that India was fast turning into a ‘Hindu Rashtra.’
A complaint was filed against him in the wake of his ‘derogatory’ comments.