SC urges restraint to ensure peace

The Supreme Court has urged restraint against unnecessary judicial intervention in mosque-related disputes that may disturb public peace and order, while observing that sectarian differences cannot ordinarily deprive Muslims of their right to worship in public mosques. In a detailed four-page order authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmed, the SC observed that disputes concerning mosques involve not only private claims but also wider public rights, and therefore require sensitivity to communal harmony and the sanctity of places of worship. The observations came during proceedings in a dispute between two sects over the management and use of a mosque. "We deem it appropriate to observe that disputes concerning mosques implicate not only private claims but also public rights, and the Courts have consistently discouraged multiplicity of litigation in such matters where an amicable or administrative settlement is feasible. It is desirable that differences relating to the management, use, or administration of mosques be resolved with sensitivity to the wider community, so as to maintain harmony, protect the sanctity of places of worship, and avoid unnecessary judicial intervention that may disrupt public peace and order," reads the order. The judgment further held that mere sectarian labelling does not automatically convert a public mosque into an exclusive denominational property, and that disputes over management should not deprive Muslims of their right to worship. A division bench of the SC headed by Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan observed that the controversy raised important legal and constitutional questions concerning the status of a mosque in Islam, the right of worship of different sects, the scope and application of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with res judicata, and the role of the administration in maintaining peace and public order. The court further noted that in Islam, a mosque is not merely a physical structure but a sacred institution representing the principles of Tauheed, unity, brotherhood and equality among believers. "The concept of the mosque reflects the collective spiritual life of the Muslim community, where distinctions of lineage, wealth, or social status dissolve in the shared act of worship. The Holy Qur'an repeatedly emphasises unity and cohesion among believers." The order further observed that Islamic injunctions demonstrate that a mosque is not reserved for any particular group but is dedicated to the worship of Allah and the spiritual fellowship of the Muslim community. "The importance of congregational worship is emphasised in the traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who stated in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that prayer offered in congregation is twenty-seven times superior to prayer performed individually. Historical practice during his lifetime further illustrates the inclusive character of the mosque: Masjid al-Nabawi in Madinah was open to all Muslims without distinction of colour, lineage, or tribal affiliation, while Masjid al-Haram in Makkah accommodates Muslims of different schools of thought, who, despite juristic differences in matters of jiqh, stand shoulder to shoulder in prayer within the same sacred precincts." The court categorically stated: "Islam does not recognise sectarian segregation in places of worship. All major schools of thought, including Sunni (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali) and Shia (Jafri), share the same Qibla, Qur'an, and fundamental pillars of Islam." It further observed: "Minor ritual differences, such as raising hands (Raf' ul-Yadain), saying Ameen aloud or silently, or folding arms during prayer, are juristic differences {ik.htilaf-e-fiqhi}, not differences of creed, and are insufficient to exclude any believer from access to mosques." Referring to constitutional protections, the order stated that under Article 20 of the Constitution, every citizen has the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to law, public order and morality, while every religious denomination has the right to establish and maintain its religious institutions. "However, once a mosque is dedicated as a waqf, it ordinarily becomes a public place of worship, unless it is specifically shown to be a private mosque. The general principle is that mosques are for Allah and for all Muslims, and no Muslim can ordinarily be restrained from offering prayer therein, unless his presence creates a clear and imminent breach of peace." The court also clarified that: "The mere inscription of 'Masjid Able Tashi' on the facade of a mosque does not, by itself, confer legal authority to exclude other Muslims, unless the dedication and use of the mosque specifically demonstrate that it is a private denominational waqf." At the same time, the order recognized the role of civil administration in preventing conflict. "Where differences in prayer method or practice are likely to give rise to serious disturbance, the district administration may, in exercise of powers under Sections 144, 145, and 107, Cr.P.C., temporarily regulate the use of the mosque to preserve public order and tranquility." Turning to the issue of res judicata, the court observed that the doctrine applies only where the matter directly and substantially in issue is the same, involves the same parties, and has already been finally decided by a competent court of law.

from Latest News, Breaking News & Top News Stories | The Express Tribune https://ift.tt/Pamc1qo