الهند: انتقاد إسلامي للحكم القضائي المتعلق بأرض مسجد بابري

انتقدت منظمة "مجلس شورى مسلمي الهند" حكم المحكمة العليا بمدينة "أيودا"، الذي أفاد تقسيم أرض مسجد "بابري" الذي تعرض للتدمير على أيدي الهندوس عام 1992 بين المسلمين والهندوس.

وقد أكدت المنظمة الإسلامية أن الحكم غير قانوني معتمد على الخرافات والأساطير، وأكدت اتجاه المجتمع الإسلامي للمحكمة العليا لمراجعة الحكم بناء على القوانين لا على الأساطير.

وأكد الشيخ "سيد شهاب الدين" - المتحدث باسم المنظمة - أن المحكمة لم تراع أن وضع الأصنام التابعة للهندوس قد وضعت بفعل فاعل في المكان المتنازع عليه، الذي به اعتبر حق الهندوس في أرض المسجد.

وقد أكدت المنظمة النصرانية الهندية أن المحكمة بنت الحكم بصورة جلية على اعتبار الحساسية الشعبية السياسية بعيدًا عن النقاط القانونية، وقال "جون دايال" رئيس المجلس: لم تحكم المحكمة بناء على القانون، بل باعتبار مشاعر واعتقادات الناس, وهو ما يمنح الغالبية سلطة مطلقة غير عادية ببلد تتميز بالتعدد الثقافي مثل "الهند", وهو ما قد يكون له نتائج خطيرة على أي نزاعات من هذا القبيل.

الخبر من مصدره الأصلي:

Muslim umbrella body calls verdict extra-legal

The All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, umbrella body of Indian Muslim organisations, on Friday described the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya title suits as confusing, extra-legal and based on myths and legends. “The Muslim community is dissatisfied and shocked by the judgment and is determined to exercise its right of appeal to the Supreme Court with a view to reversing the judicial stand from the mythological to the legal,” it said.

AIMMM president Syed Shahabuddin said the community would accept the “final verdict of the Supreme Court as it is committed to the Constitution and the rule of law.” The judgment highlighted the argument of “faith,” which was “manufactured with political motives some years before 1949 and subsequently played up by the sangh parivar.”

He said the judgment allotted the area under the central dome of the masjid to Ram Lalla, recognising it as a deity, without taking into account the fact that the idol and other items were placed in the inner courtyard by “human hands” and later shifted to the “minbar” under the central dome.

The judgment, Mr. Shahabuddin said, emphasised that both Muslims and Hindus worshipped in the masjid. However, records showed that Muslims “always and exclusively” used the hall under the three domes and the adjoining inner courtyard for prayers while Hindus worshipped Ram at the Ram chabutra located in the outer courtyard.

The judgment also “exceeded its authority in going beyond the 1994 directive of the Supreme Court” for determining the title to the disputed site. “Indeed, it does what the Supreme Court had itself refused to do; declare whether it is Ram Janmabhumi,” Mr. Shahabuddin said.

“Disturbing signals”

Meanwhile, in a separate statement, the All-India Christian Council said the verdict was based on patently populist and political sensitivities rather than on points of law. Council president John Dayal also felt that there were “disturbing signals” in the judgment for other minorities.

“The courts are not ruling on points of law but on the feelings and faith of people, which gives the majority community an extraordinary power in a multi-cultural nation such as India and can have serious implications in other disputes of this nature,” he said.