The US-Christianity is evidently under strangulating control of the money power of the Jews (ii)- Without bringing the USA Under its political infl
Muslims should file Review Petition in Supreme Court about Babri-Masjid on these points. By Hem Raj Jain
This refers to November, 17 Press conference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zq_hktsR7w ) by ‘All India Muslim Personal law Board’ (AIMPLB) where it was revealed that Review petition will be filed against SCI judgment of November 9, 2019 in Ayodhya dispute (https://ummid.com/news/2019/november/17.11.2019/muslim-perosnal-law-board-to-file-ayodhya-verdict-review-petition.html ). In this judgment (https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/JUD_2.pdf ) entire disputed site has been given illegally & unconstitutionally by the SCI to Hindus (the legal person ‘Ram Lala Birajman’). Hence In addition to other points on followings points the Review petition should be filed by Muslims:-
(1)- First and foremost the Muslims should not become apologetic about any Hindu temple structure below Babri Masjid. The Muslims should mention in Review petition that the SCI in impugned judgment (before discussing this issue) of Hindu structure below Babri Masjid) forgot that thousands of Hindu and Jain temples were allegedly (in popular perception formed by even overblown propaganda) demolished by Muslim invaders and rulers from 8th to 18th century and even Masjids were built on these demolished temple sites or at other sites with the material of destroyed temples (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statues_of_Jain_Tirthankaras_in_the_Qutub_Complex,_Delhi.jpg ). Hence even if Babri Masjid is constructed on some Hindu structure (as claimed by ASI which was illegally allowed excavation at disputed site because it is not done in civil suits as unlike criminal cases it is not the responsibility of Courts to investigate to gather evidences in civil suits) there is nothing special about it. But Muslims despite this hostile history (destruction of temple in the past) opted to remain in progressive India (unlike medieval theocratic Pakistan) because India still adopted secular constitution after partition and even passed ‘The Places of Worship (Especial Provision) Act’ in order to help Indians forget said gory past (including partition in which about 1 million were killed and about 20 million displaced across the border in horrible condition) and move forward.
(2)- The Muslims should mention in Review petition that before any judgment in said Review petition the Status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid should be restored [which was demolished in 1992 in the presence of Observer of SCI and despite court order for maintaining status-quo of Babri Masjid otherwise it will be lowering the authority of Court which will be criminal contempt even on the part of SCI under section 2 (c ) (i) read with section 16 of Contempt of Court Act]. A prayer should be made in this Review petition that SCI should direct Government of India (GOI) to be ready to requisition UNPKF in case communal Hindutva forces (as they did in the past) create law & order problem all across the country during restoration of status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid (if security forces of India can go in other countries for maintaining peace though UNPKF then security forces of other countries can also come in India for maintaining peace through UNPKF). Muslims should further mention in this petition that they will accept demolition of restored Babri Majid through Court order (if judgment in Review petition goes against Muslims) but they cannot be expected to accept Masjid to be destroyed by vandals (as an effrontery to Court order) as was done on December 6, 1992 by Hindutva forces.
[The Muslims should also mention in this Review petition that due to failure of the SCI to restore the Status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid, not only the communal Hindutva forces got emboldened hence could carry out many riots (an euphemism for mass scale killing of mostly thousands of innocent Muslims by Hindutva forces) since Bari-Masjid demolition including in 2002 in Gujarat under the watch of present Prime Minister who was then CM of Gujarat but it has also facilitated BJP to come in power at Centre and in many States of India].
(3)- How the SCI can give entire disputed site to those Hindutva forces which demolished Babri Masjid in 1992 and that too in presence of the Observer of SCI itself. This means SCI gave benefit to Hindutva forces of their wrong and sent a message that the crime of Hindutva forces paid which is legally objectionable.
(4)- How can SCI forget that an idol can be made juristic person (legal person) but every idol does not automatically become a legal person. Rather an idol has to be made a legal person by bringing it on some government record (along with mention of its liabilities & assets) through a legal / administrative process. This means ‘Ram Lala Birajman’ the idol became legal person only on November 9, 2019 when SCI awarded said legally objectionable judgment (or in 1989 when suit No. 5 was filed). Then how can ‘Ram Lala Birajman’ the legal person show / prove its possession of disputed site from 1528 to before November 9, 2019 or before 1989 (as was absurdly expected from Muslims / ‘Sunni Waqf Board’ to rigorously prove) ?
(5)- SCI wrongly dismissed the point of adverse possession. Adverse possession is not merely between Muslims and Hindus but also (i)- Between Muslims and Government and (ii)- Hindus and Government. Because entire disputed land belongs to Government (Nazul land as mentioned by SCI in impugned judgement).
(6)- How can SCI ask Government of India (of secular India) to form a Trust for construction of Ram Temple of Hindus (for religious purpose)
(7)- The SCI said in impugned judgment that Muslims stopped Namaz from 1949 because it was desecrated by Hindus by putting Ram idol in it. At the same time SCI admits that Muslims were offering Namaz before 1949 which means before 1949 Masjid was not desecrated by any idol. Then what Hindus were praying / worshiping over there ? This even as per SCI proves exclusive possession of Muslims of Babri-Masjid before 1949 which confers title of disputed site on Muslims due to such a long possession
(8)- The SCI wrongly said in impugned judgment that Hindus had uninterrupted and unopposed possession of outer courtyard. This is factually wrong in view of suit of 1885 by Mahant Raghubar Das in which Muslims pressed their claim on outer courtyard too. Moreover in case between Shia Waqf Board and Sunni Waqf Board in 1945 the case was decided in favor of Sunni Waqf Board and in this case despite public notices the Hindus did not press their claim on any of the part of disputed site.
(9)- The SCI in impugned judgment did not give legally expected importance to the fact that Babri-Masjid belong to Sunni Waqf Board which is an institution born-out of an ‘ACT’ (the Statute) hence the properties with the Waqf undergo the rigorous scrutiny about their titles and possessions.
(1)- First and foremost the Muslims should not become apologetic about any Hindu temple structure below Babri Masjid. The Muslims should mention in Review petition that the SCI in impugned judgment (before discussing this issue) of Hindu structure below Babri Masjid) forgot that thousands of Hindu and Jain temples were allegedly (in popular perception formed by even overblown propaganda) demolished by Muslim invaders and rulers from 8th to 18th century and even Masjids were built on these demolished temple sites or at other sites with the material of destroyed temples (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statues_of_Jain_Tirthankaras_in_the_Qutub_Complex,_Delhi.jpg ). Hence even if Babri Masjid is constructed on some Hindu structure (as claimed by ASI which was illegally allowed excavation at disputed site because it is not done in civil suits as unlike criminal cases it is not the responsibility of Courts to investigate to gather evidences in civil suits) there is nothing special about it. But Muslims despite this hostile history (destruction of temple in the past) opted to remain in progressive India (unlike medieval theocratic Pakistan) because India still adopted secular constitution after partition and even passed ‘The Places of Worship (Especial Provision) Act’ in order to help Indians forget said gory past (including partition in which about 1 million were killed and about 20 million displaced across the border in horrible condition) and move forward.
(2)- The Muslims should mention in Review petition that before any judgment in said Review petition the Status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid should be restored [which was demolished in 1992 in the presence of Observer of SCI and despite court order for maintaining status-quo of Babri Masjid otherwise it will be lowering the authority of Court which will be criminal contempt even on the part of SCI under section 2 (c ) (i) read with section 16 of Contempt of Court Act]. A prayer should be made in this Review petition that SCI should direct Government of India (GOI) to be ready to requisition UNPKF in case communal Hindutva forces (as they did in the past) create law & order problem all across the country during restoration of status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid (if security forces of India can go in other countries for maintaining peace though UNPKF then security forces of other countries can also come in India for maintaining peace through UNPKF). Muslims should further mention in this petition that they will accept demolition of restored Babri Majid through Court order (if judgment in Review petition goes against Muslims) but they cannot be expected to accept Masjid to be destroyed by vandals (as an effrontery to Court order) as was done on December 6, 1992 by Hindutva forces.
[The Muslims should also mention in this Review petition that due to failure of the SCI to restore the Status-quo-ante of Babri Masjid, not only the communal Hindutva forces got emboldened hence could carry out many riots (an euphemism for mass scale killing of mostly thousands of innocent Muslims by Hindutva forces) since Bari-Masjid demolition including in 2002 in Gujarat under the watch of present Prime Minister who was then CM of Gujarat but it has also facilitated BJP to come in power at Centre and in many States of India].
(3)- How the SCI can give entire disputed site to those Hindutva forces which demolished Babri Masjid in 1992 and that too in presence of the Observer of SCI itself. This means SCI gave benefit to Hindutva forces of their wrong and sent a message that the crime of Hindutva forces paid which is legally objectionable.
(4)- How can SCI forget that an idol can be made juristic person (legal person) but every idol does not automatically become a legal person. Rather an idol has to be made a legal person by bringing it on some government record (along with mention of its liabilities & assets) through a legal / administrative process. This means ‘Ram Lala Birajman’ the idol became legal person only on November 9, 2019 when SCI awarded said legally objectionable judgment (or in 1989 when suit No. 5 was filed). Then how can ‘Ram Lala Birajman’ the legal person show / prove its possession of disputed site from 1528 to before November 9, 2019 or before 1989 (as was absurdly expected from Muslims / ‘Sunni Waqf Board’ to rigorously prove) ?
(5)- SCI wrongly dismissed the point of adverse possession. Adverse possession is not merely between Muslims and Hindus but also (i)- Between Muslims and Government and (ii)- Hindus and Government. Because entire disputed land belongs to Government (Nazul land as mentioned by SCI in impugned judgement).
(6)- How can SCI ask Government of India (of secular India) to form a Trust for construction of Ram Temple of Hindus (for religious purpose)
(7)- The SCI said in impugned judgment that Muslims stopped Namaz from 1949 because it was desecrated by Hindus by putting Ram idol in it. At the same time SCI admits that Muslims were offering Namaz before 1949 which means before 1949 Masjid was not desecrated by any idol. Then what Hindus were praying / worshiping over there ? This even as per SCI proves exclusive possession of Muslims of Babri-Masjid before 1949 which confers title of disputed site on Muslims due to such a long possession
(8)- The SCI wrongly said in impugned judgment that Hindus had uninterrupted and unopposed possession of outer courtyard. This is factually wrong in view of suit of 1885 by Mahant Raghubar Das in which Muslims pressed their claim on outer courtyard too. Moreover in case between Shia Waqf Board and Sunni Waqf Board in 1945 the case was decided in favor of Sunni Waqf Board and in this case despite public notices the Hindus did not press their claim on any of the part of disputed site.
(9)- The SCI in impugned judgment did not give legally expected importance to the fact that Babri-Masjid belong to Sunni Waqf Board which is an institution born-out of an ‘ACT’ (the Statute) hence the properties with the Waqf undergo the rigorous scrutiny about their titles and possessions.
You May Also Like
Bangladesh's relations with neighboring India are strained over various issues. Since the fall of autocratic Sheikh Hasina's government and
Ajmer Dargah Sharif, the Shrine of famous Sufi Saint Muin-al-din-Chisti popularly known as ‘Gharib Nawaz’(benefactor of poor
"Trial of Pakistani Christian Nation" By Nazir S Bhatti
On demand of our readers, I have decided to release E-Book version of "Trial of Pakistani Christian Nation" on website of PCP which can also be viewed on website of Pakistan Christian Congress www.pakistanchristiancongress.org . You can read chapter wise by clicking tab on left handside of PDF format of E-Book.