Reacting to the verdict, Khaliq Ahmad Khan, the nominee of Maulana Mahfuzur Rahman -- one of the litigants in the title suit, said, "During the hearing on the tittle suit in the Supreme court, the other side always quoted the 1994 judgement that mosque is not an integral part of Islam. Now the court has made it clear that the 1994 judgement was related to the land acquisition...and that it has no connection with the tittle suit. We have achieved our goal as the Supreme Court will hear only the tittle suit."
Iqbaal Ansari, another litigant from the Sunni Central Waqf Board, welcomed the verdict and said, "The Supreme Court has made it clear that the case will be heard on merits, on the base of the claims of land ownership... and not on religious beliefs as the high court has done."
He said they were "fighting the case for Babri land on the basis of revenue records". "Our claim is that there are no historical facts that any temple was demolished and Babri Masjid was built there," he added.
The Supreme Court declined to set up a larger bench for a relook of its 1994 verdict which held a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam", paving the way for the apex court to hear the politically sensitive main Ayodhya title suit from October 29.
Ruling that the earlier observation was made in the limited context of "land acquisition" during the hearing of the Ayodhya case, the top court in a 2-1 verdict made it clear it was not relevant for deciding the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute.
The 1994 verdict had said: "A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz(prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open."
Haji Mahboob, another litigant, said, "The verdict of the apex court is in our favour."
Countering the contention that namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, Mahboob said, "We can offer our prayer anywhere and it does not mean that mosque is not integral part of Islam as it has been proved by the Quran that mosque is very essential."