The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmad Bukhari, on Thursday lost his cool and physically assaulted a local journalist who asked him some questions related to the Ayodhya dispute.
The Shahi Imam threatened the journalist with dire consequences and used abusive language.
The journalist later lodged a complaint against the Shahi Imam and his supporters at the Hazratganj police station.
Maulana Bukhari lost his temper when the journalist, Mohammad Wahid Chishti, who represents a local paper Dastane Awadh, said that according to his sources the disputed land was shown as belonging to Raja Dashrath in the land records of 1528. He wanted to know why the disputed land could not be handed over to the Hindus when Muslims had built so many temples in the country.
“As such, Ram, who was his heir, should inherit the land. Also when Muslim rulers had built so many temples in this country, what is the harm in handing over one more temple to them?” he asked.
The Maulana reacted sharply to the question and accused the journalist of being a traitor. “It is people like you who want to want Muslims to give up their right to the Babri Masjid,” said. After the press conference, when Maulana Bukhari saw some news channels interviewing the journalist, he and his supporters marched towards the journalist and physically threw him out of the venue.
Later, the Shahi Imam told reporters that he could not tolerate the presence of “Congress agents” in his press conference.
Earlier, Maulana Bukhari blamed the Congress for betraying the Muslims.
“Be it the placing of the idols of in 1949, the opening of the locks in 1986, the shilanyas in 1989, and the demolition of 1992 or now the judgment of 2010- the Congress has always at the helm of affairs,” he said. He claimed that the ASI report had been tampered with to influence the court.
The Shahi Imam said that Muslims should challenge the high court judgment in the Supreme Court as there was no chance of any out of court settlement. “Only the apex court can settle this issue,” he stated.
Replying to a question, he termed Mohd Hashim Ansari, the oldest living plaintiff in the title suit case, as a non-serious person and said that there was no need to give any importance to his initiative for an out-of-court settlement.