By Anwarulhaq Baig
All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Muslim scholars and leaders have dismissed the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) report on Gyanvapi Masjid as inconclusive evidence.
The ASI has claimed that the Masjid was built on the debris of a temple.
AIMPLB spokesperson Dr. Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas alleged that the Hindu side, by releasing the controversial report to the press, has committed not only contempt of court but also caused unrest and insecurity in the society.
Dr. Ilyas described the leaking of controversial ASI findings by the Hindu side as an attempt to influence the courts through media uproar, especially when the main title suit is sub judice.
Alleging that the Hindu side had also previously made misleading claims about the reservoir fountain of the mosque, Dr. Ilyas stated, “Similarly, a few months ago, when the survey team labelled the fountain present in the tank (Wazu khana) as a Shivling in its initial report, the Hindu side tried its best to mislead the public and create unrest in society. However, it has not been verified yet by experts, and the court has not made any decision on it.”
Drawing attention to the striking similarity between the current ASI claims and past assertions, the board spokesperson noted that in the Babri Masjid case, a team of ten leading archaeologists and historians appointed by the Board debunked the ASI claims of a grand temple beneath the mosque. “The team presented their findings in court, favoring the mosque’s status. Consequently, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court disregarded the ASI claims, deeming them unworthy of consideration. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in its observations, remarked that the objects unearthed during the excavation predated the Babri Masjid’s construction by four centuries.”
Dr. SQR Ilyas
Expressing confidence that the present ASI report on Gyanvapi will meet the same fate as its previous claims about the Babri Masjid, Dr. Ilyas lamented that respected key institutions are losing their reputation by being used as pawns by communal elements.D
He said that board’s legal team will study the report and present it’s argument in the court through Masjid intezamia committee advocate. He appealed to the people to refrain from forming any premature views on the report until the court’s final decision.
The management committee of the Gyanvapi mosque has rejected the ASI survey report.
Dismissing the ASI claims of a temple, the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee’s joint secretary, Syed Mohammad Yaseen, called it just a report and not a judgment in the case.
Yaseen said the Masjid committee will decide on further course of legal actions after studying and analyzing the ASI survey report. through our team of legal experts.
Syed Mohammed Yasin
Giving a historical background of the Gyanvapi mosque, he stated that Muslims have been offering namaz for about 600 years, as a Muslim landlord of Jaunpur built the mosque approximately 600 years ago. Later, Mughal Emperor Akbar renovated it, while Emperor Aurangzeb expanded the mosque building.
In response to a question over the barricading and locking of the mosque complex’s basements in 1993 by the administration, Yaseen replied that before barricading, anyone could come inside the mosque premises and we have photographs that even children were playing cricket behind the mosque while they were flying kites above the building.
The head priest of Acharya Ved Vyas Peeth temple, claiming ownership of one of the four basements of the Gyanvapi mosque had pleaded last year before the court of the civil judge that the key to the basement be handed over to the DM. Shailendra Kumar Pathak in his plea claimed that his grandfather Somnath Vyas, a priest, used to worship in the basement before its closure in 1993. Accepting his request, District Judge A.K. Vishwesh on January 17 ordered that the keys to the basement be handed over to the district magistrate.
However, Yaseen strongly objected to media persons referring to the mosque’s basement as “Vyas ji ka tahkhana.” Rejecting any claim of the Hindu side over basement (taikhana) of the mosque, Yaseen cited a 1937 civil court judgment which ruled that the land on which the mosque stood and its plinth were Hanafi Muslim waqf land and belonged to the Muslims.
Reacting to the ASI report, the chief imam of the mosque, Mufti Abdul Batin Nomani, echoed similar views and appealed to the people of Varanasi to remain calm and maintain law and order in the city, urging them not to pay attention to any rumours or claims concerning the mosque. He also indicated that the next course of action will be determined after a thorough review of the ASI report.
Mufti Abdul Batin Nomani
Akhlaq Ahmad, the lawyer for the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, dismissed the ASI findings, citing a lack of concrete evidence of a pre-existing temple. Talking to media, Ahmad explained that the reason the ASI survey uncovered only broken idols and statues is that they were actually scraps discarded by sculptors who used to work near the mosque. “There was a building near the mosque’s northern gate, called the Chhatta Dwar. It had sculptors as tenants until a few years ago, and they used to throw their unused or incomplete sculptures and busts behind their rooms. So, the ASI only found broken statues,” said Ahmad, asserting that no idol was found in the western wall of the mosque to verify the claims that the wall was part of a temple.
A Book : ‘Jama Masjid Gyanvapi In A Historical context’ by Mufti Abdul Batin Nomani
Renowned TV channel debater and author of many historical books, including a documented book titled ‘Jama Masjid Gyanvapi’, Maulana Abdul Hameed Nomani categorically rejected the notion that Aurangzeb had demolished any temple to build the mosque in Varanasi.
Moulana Nomani also rejected the claim that the Jama Masjid Gyanvapi was built by demolishing the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
When asked about a widely circulated video clip in which Professor Irfan Habib makes a statement claiming the Maasir i Alamgiri, a chronicle of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, mentions that the Gyanvapi mosque was built by demolishing the Kashi Vishwanath temple, Abdul Hameed Nomani declared this claim entirely baseless, clarifying that the chronicle makes no such mention. He said, “It only mentions that Aurangzeb ordered the demolition of some temples that were spreading misleading teachings.”
Nomani also challenged the claim of Vishnu Shankar Jain, a lawyer representing the Kashi Vishwanath temple that the Maasir I Alamgiri supports the above claim.
A Book ‘Jama Masjid Gyanvapi and Other Historical Mosques of Varanasi – Reality and Fiction’ : by Maulana Abdul Hameed Nomani
Nomani said that even renowned India historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870–1958) has not mentioned that the mosque was built by demolishing the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
Explaining that demolishing a temple and building a mosque on its ruins after demolishing the temple are two distinct things, Nomani stated, “Both Irfan Habib and Hindutvawadis are attempting to mislead people by mixing these two issues.”
Nomani clarified that the mosque’s original name is Jama Masjid Banaras, not Gyanvapi Mosque. He stressed that “Gyanvapi” solely refers to the surrounding area, and its recent adoption as part of the mosque’s name by media outlets and Hindutva groups is factually incorrect.
Nomani also clarified that the mosque predates Aurangzeb’s reign by a significant margin, having been built during the rule of Ibrahim Shah Sharqi (1401-1440), the third Sultan of the Jaunpur Sultanate.
He presented historical evidence suggesting the presence of the Jama Masjid Gyanvapi before the Mughal period. According to him, historical chronicles mention the offering of namaz in the mosque during the reigns of Mughal emperors like Akbar and Shah Jahan.
Nomani also mentioned that Emperor Shah Jahan built a madrassa, Aywane Shariyat, adjacent to the mosque.
Addressing the claim of Shringar Gauri puja, Nomani noted that before India’s independence in 1947, there was a small, roofless mosque known as Qanati Masjid on the western side of the Jama Masjid Gyanvapi. “Following the chaos and unrest that accompanied the partition of India, idols were placed on the floor of the ruined Qanati Masjid, where puja has been performed since then. Due to the predominantly Hindu population in the locality, Muslims did not resist this action at the time. Earlier, Shringar Gauri puja was performed about 50 yards away from the western wall of the mosque in Phool Mandi (Flower Market).”
While asserting “Shahi Ahata” as the historical name of the Gyanvapi mosque complex, Nomani further stated that the present Kashi Vishwanath temple was built on land within the “Shahi Aahata” that belonged to the mosque, by Maratha ruler Ahilyabai Holkar of Indore in 1784.
Questioning the legality of mosque surveys under the 1991 Places of Worship Act, Dr. Zafrul Islam Khan, former chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission, condemned the court’s permission for the Gyanvapi mosque survey as blatantly illegal. He argued that such actions by the court overstep legal authority and questioned the judge’s legitimacy in making this decision.
Dr Zafarul Islam Khan
Drawing parallels to the Babri Masjid ASI survey, Dr. Khan expressed deep mistrust in the process, calling it a politically motivated scheme designed to humiliate Muslims and perpetuate a cycle of targeting mosques. He accused the surveyors of bias and manipulations, suggesting their findings are predetermined.
Criticizing the government’s actions as politically motivated tactics to generate fear and intimidation among minorities, he pointed out that similar controversies are being created in Mathura, Badayun, Saharanpur, Karnataka, and Lucknow, threatening the religious places of Muslims. He expressed concern that this could lead to a nationwide campaign against Muslim religious sites, undermining the secular fabric of India. Accusing the Hindutva groups of being based on a false sense of superiority and aiming to suppress minorities, Dr. Khan asserted that it ultimately harms India’s image.
Rejecting the ASI claims, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi wrote on X, “This wouldn’t stand academic scrutiny before any set of professional archaeologists or historians. The report is based on conjecture and makes a mockery of scientific study. As a great scholar once said ‘ASI is the handmaiden of Hindutva’.”
Courtesy https://indiatomorrow.net/