NEW DELHI: Muslim scholar Syed Abdullah Tariq had in 1988 warned the then Muslim leadership of repercussions of taking the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue to the level of a clash between the two communities.

When the Babri Masjid Action Committee gave a call for a march of the Muslims towards the Babri Masjid in 1988, he had termed its step as incorrect and provocative.

Tariq, who hails from Uttar Pradesh's Rampur, is a scholar of both Hinduism and Islam and popular among the people of both the communities.

He also hailed Maulana Salman Nadwi's initiative of an out-of-court settlement of the Ayodhya dispute as a "courageous step".

Tariq said the human beings are the living temples or mosques and maintaining peace between them is more important than building any religious structure.

We interacted with Syed Abdullah Tariq, who generally keeps himself away from the media, to uncover what Islam has to say on the decades-long Babri Masjid-Ranmabhoomi issue.

What's your stand on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue?

I am neither a historian nor an archaeologist. The ground reality is that Muslim masses honestly believe that the Hindus’ claim on it is false while Hindu masses have been made to believe that it was built by demolishing a temple. The dispute intensified after the controversial decisions of district courts in 1950 and 1986. In my opinion, the issue of an ever-increasing gulf of hatred since then, is of greater concern than the temple or mosque. The human beings are the living temples or mosques and they should not be destroyed for bricks and mortar. Way back in 1988, I had written an article in a National level weekly urdu paper ‘Akhbar-e-Nau’ that Qur’an and Sunnah (traditions and sayings of Prophet Muhammad) instruct us not to aggravate the dispute to the level of a clash on this issue. My stand never changed till date because it is guided by my faith.

Up to what extent you support Salman Nadwi's formula of shifting Babri site to some other location?

The mosques have been shifted in Muslim majority countries for human needs with the consent of Islamic Fiq’h (jurisprudence) scholars of those countries. If the mosques could be shifted for creative needs, it is more imperative that we shift them to avoid destructive intents. I congratulate Maulana Salman Nadwi for his courage to defy a powerful Board in the interest of peaceful settlement of a dispute of gigantic proportions by applying a provision which is not new to Islamic scholars.

Do you agree with the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's stand of 'once a Masjid, always a Masjid'?

Let me first complete the peculiar claim, a part of which you have mentioned. “Once a Masjid, always a Masjid from the earth to heavens”. If the space over a mosque is also a mosque up to infinity, then why don’t they object to the planes passing through their mosques’ property in space? Nothing is eternal except God. We build the house of God by our own hands and we can build another elsewhere if the physical peace required for the all-important mental and spiritual peace becomes a casualty there.

Who's responsible for dragging this issue for almost three decades?

The simple reply is ‘the politicians, the governments and the proceedings in the courts too' but being an honest Muslim, I shall proclaim that we, the Muslims are responsible. Not only we did not agree to peaceful settlements till others were more tolerant and understanding towards us, we did not fulfil our main responsibility in the first place, of reaching out to the Non-Muslim brothers to convince them by our words and actions that Islam is a religion of peace.

The AIMPLB has faced flak for its stand on triple talaq issue, now it is being criticized for opposing Salman Nadwi's initiative. Where do you think the board is taking Indian Muslims to?

When those claiming to safeguard the rights of a community, fail repeatedly because of their bad judgments and misadventures, they lose their credibility. There arise two scenarios in such eventualities. Either a new constructive and dynamic leadership evolves or the community goes into hibernation for a long interval. I hope and pray for the former.

Those opposing an out-of-court settlement say that if the disputed land is 'gifted' like this, questions would be raised on other mosques too by the other group. Do you agree?

The Hindu masses, in general, have always been accommodative and tolerant. They would never have supported such demands, had the Muslim leaders sensibly accepted an out of court agreement reached out between Maulana Ali Mian Nadwi and Shankaracharya of Kanchi in 1989. Now the situation is different. I believe that even if there is a risk of some other mosques being claimed by the adventurers on the other side, we should not disregard the advice of Qur’an and the way of the Prophet. I shall tell about that later but here is an advice of the great Islamic poet Dr. Muhammad Iqbal:

“Nasheman par Nasheman Is Qadar Taameer Karta Ja

Ki Bijli Girte Girte Aap Khud Bezar Ho Jae”.

(Go on building nest upon nest to the extent that the lightening gets bored of strikes.) We can always build some other mosques. Can’t we?

What is the guidance that the Quran gives if such a dispute arises?

There are so many Ayahs (verses) of Qur’an relating to the concerned situation that it will require a lengthy article to quote and explain all of them. I shall, however, mention two with explanation.

1: In his 6th year in Madina, Prophet Muhammad along with 1400 companions proceeded for Makkah for pilgrimage. When the convoy reached a place Hudaibiyah near Makkah, the Makkans knew of it and sent a message that they were not permitted to enter the city. The situation became quite explosive. Surah (Chapter) 48 of Qur’an was revealed at that moment through which Muslims were instructed to go back in the interest of peace and to avoid the danger to the life of a few Muslims who were trapped in Makkah. In compliance to the order, they signed a treaty with the Makkans that seemed like a defeat but the Qur’an termed it as a victory. The said Surah specifically mentioned that in the event of an armed conflict, they would have emerged victorious but they would surely win their goal later in a peaceful manner. And they did.

2: Qur’an instructs the believers in 5:2 thus: “…And let not hatred of a people -- because they hindered you from the Al-Haram Mosque -- incite you to transgress…” The striking relevance of the Ayah (verse) to the Ayodhya dispute is that the word ‘Ayodhya’ can be interpreted as ‘A + Yuddh’ which means ‘where combat is prohibited’. Now the Al-Haram Mosque is a Mosque where the killing of even a bug is prohibited. Thus the application of the said Ayah in the present circumstances will be interpreted as: “…And let not hatred of a people -- because they hindered you from the Al-Haram Mosque (Ayodhya  Mosque) -- incite you to transgress…”

In some of your talks, you referred to India as a 'Punya Bhoomi'. Why and how?

India is a place where the first human being Adam who also was the first prophet of Islam, descended from heaven. Being the land of origin of Islam, this land must be dear and sacred to all Muslims of the world. Besides, there is a tradition that Hazrat Ali felt that India was the land of most decent wind.

Moreover, Adam being the first man on earth, the humanity originated from this land. This fact is sufficient to make it the original motherland of all the people in the world and they must hold it dear.