While some Shia leaders have supported the construction of Ram Temple on the disputed site, other known Shia faces have criticised this stand. While everybody agrees that the dispute should be resolved at the earliest possible, prominent Sunni faces have largely favoured the court hearing the case and pronouncing a binding verdict for all.
Haseeb Siddiqui, chairman, All India Muslim Iqtisadi Council and a known-Sunni face in Deoband, told The Sunday Guardian, “We want the Supreme Court to take the final decision. An out-of-court settlement is not possible in this matter. There are Shias and Sunnis who are not on the same page and then we have Hindus, who are standing on the other side. Bringing all three parties on a single platform and expecting a mediator to facilitate talks is perhaps over-ambitious. For the mediator to do the job effectively, the mediator first needs to be welcomed by all. It is too complicated.”
However, Waseem Rizvi, chairperson, Uttar Pradesh Shia Waqf Board, who has been vocal about his support for a Ram temple, said, “Compromise must be done for this matter to be resolved. Ram temple should be built on the disputed site and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board should solve their differences amicably in an out-of-court settlement.”
Maulana Kalbe Jawad of Majlis-e-Ulama-Hind, one of the prominent leaders among Shias, said that an out-of-court settlement is too complicated considering the facts of the case. “There is no unanimous take of the Shia community on the Ayodhya issue. Anybody claiming so is trying to misguide people. I do not think that an out-of-court settlement can be facilitated. Though it would be perfect if everybody could just sit and talk, it looks too complicated, which is why the court should take a decision and everyone should abide by it.”
On reports of negotiations between parties to the case being facilitated by spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Maulana Syed Jalaluddin Umari, president of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and vice-president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), said, “Such efforts (for an out-of-court settlement) have been made previously too, but have failed. Hence, we are not hopeful that fresh efforts by somebody (referring to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar) will yield any results. We do not know who was contacted from AIMPLB and what their response was. Secondly, Muslims believe that this matter must be resolved through the judiciary and any out-of-court settlement is bound to fail. The AIMPLB, too, has said this previously several times. Let us wait for the court judgement.” While there is unanimity over an out-of-court settlement in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue among Muslims, another division also exists over the Shia Waqf Board’s claim over the demolished Babri Masjid, which the board claims was built by a Shia general.
Waseem Rizvi told The Sunday Guardian, “Babri was built by Mir Baqi who was the governor of Awadh. Baqi was a Shia and this reference can be found even in Tulsidas’s writings where he has mentioned the Ram Temple and the construction of Babri ordered by Baqi. The descendants of Baqi’s family were the mutawallis (caretakers) of Babri from 1528-1944. Shias were the administrators of Babri throughout this period. But the Sunni Waqf board claimed the structure to be a Sunni masjid and hence took the rights which were challenged by the Shia Waqf board in 1999, but lost the case. This year, we have again claimed our right on the masjid. Babri is a Shia waqf property and we have the right to make a decision about the future of this land.”
Contradicting Rizvi’s statements, Maulana Kalbe Jawad said, “Making such claims after losing the case in court years ago is irrelevant. Claiming that Babri was built by Shias also means that the temple that Ram Janmabhoomi petitioners claim existed on the disputed spot was also demolished by the Shias. Such claims put Shias under unwarranted scrutiny and complicate matters. There are differences between Shias and Sunnis and such comments are widening the gap between the two sects.”