'We respect judiciary; Muslims should accept Bhojshala is a temple': Bhojshala Mukti Yagna Convener
Dhar, July 17
Bhojshala Mukti Yagna Convener Gopal Sharma on Friday said the Muslim community should accept that the Bhojshala complex is a temple and respect the judicial process, while welcoming the Supreme Court's interim arrangement regarding Friday namaz.
Speaking to ANI, Sharma said they have been offering prayers at the site every day since the Madhya Pradesh High Court recognised the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex as a temple.
"We respect the country's judicial system. When the High Court gave its verdict and accepted it as a temple, we have been worshipping there since then. We are not looking at any specific day; we worship all seven days. The Supreme Court's order is welcome, but I say that Muslims should accept that this is a temple and respect the order," Sharma said.
He further alleged that repeated demands to offer namaz at the disputed site were unnecessary.
"Their own place is different, and in exchange for this place, they were already given a mosque in 1942. Asking for a new place time and again, and insisting on offering Namaz at this location, spoils the atmosphere of the city," he said.
Earlier in the day, worship of Goddess Vagdevi was performed at the Bhojshala temple.
This comes after the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to Centre and the Madhya Pradesh govt on a batch of appeals filed by the Muslim side challenging the High Court verdict, which held the disputed 11th-century Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar district as a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati.
The Supreme Court said it will examine the case; as an interim measure, a separate open space adjacent to the complex may be provided to the Muslim community for offering namaz on Friday between 1 pm and 3 pm.
Following the order, Gopal Sharma on Wednesday urged the district administration to make an arrangement that Namaz is offered outside the 300-metre radius of the Bhojshala complex, saying they welcome the Supreme Court interim ruling.
Speaking to ANI, Sharma said he believed the apex court had effectively reiterated the Madhya Pradesh High Court's May 15 order regarding the matter.
"I believe the decision delivered by the High Court on May 15 has essentially been reiterated in the Supreme Court. The Bhojshala complex means the entire area within a 300-metre radius. Namaz may be offered anywhere outside that 300-metre radius. We welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court but repeatedly demanding alternative sites after having already offered Namaz at this specific location is entirely unreasonable. This is completely unjustified," Sharma said.
— ANI
Reader Comments
The Supreme Court's interim arrangement is sensible - giving a separate space for namaz while the case is examined. But I'm concerned about the 300-metre radius demand. Courts should decide based on law, not create a 'no-go zone' for one community. Balancing religious sentiments is tricky, but we must respect all faiths.
Having visited Bhojshala last year, it's a beautiful site blending Hindu and Islamic architecture. The ASI board itself calls it a 'monument of national importance'. I wish both sides would allow the court to decide without political pressure. The 1942 exchange shows compromise is possible - let's hope for peace.
Honestly, I'm tired of these disputes. Every other week there's a new temple-mosque fight. How long will we keep digging up history? The country has bigger problems - unemployment, education, healthcare. Let the courts decide once and for all, and then everyone should accept it without drama. Enough is enough.
Gopal Sharma's demand for namaz outside 300-metre radius seems excessive. The Supreme Court already arranged a separate space - that should be enough. Both sides need to show flexibility. The temple has historical significance for Hindus, but creating further restrictions will only fuel bitterness. We need wisdom, not rigidity.
As a Muslim, I find this deeply troubling. The High Court verdict is being appealed, so it's not final. Demanding that we 'accept' it's a temple before the Supreme Court decides is unfair. Yes, there
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.