In an editorial, the Shiv Sena's mouthpiece Saamna sympathised with Justice Khan's predicament while penning the judgment, and said he must have been "under tremendous mental stress and agony which is unimaginable".
However, his patriotism stood above his religion and Justice Khan has accepted that there was a temple of the Hindus' favourite god, Lord Rama, below the disputed structure.
It pointed out Justice Khan's views expressed in the ruling, saying the verdict offered Muslims yet another opportunity. "It is the responsibility of Muslims to convert it into a golden opportunity," Saamna said quoting rhe judgment.
Even one of the petitioners, Hashim Ansari, who fought the case in the Faizabad court since 1961 and is today 90 years old, wants Muslims to end the matter with this judgment, Saamna noted.
However, there are no serious efforts to bring Muslims into the national mainstream, the edit lamented.
It pointed out that even before the ink had dried on the judgment, 'Maulana' Mulayam Singh Yadav had started breathing fire.
Similarly, it said, without even reading the full judgment, the Babri Masjid Action Committee and Sunni Central Wakf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jilani started issuing statements that they would challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court.
Saamna said, "We lovingly request them not to climb the higher stairs in the legal firmament and accept the judgment as it is, in the interests of the country."
The British adopted the 'divide-and-rule' principle. Similar divisive elements continued to follow the principle - for the first time in world history, under Mohammed Ali Jinnah's leadership, a country was divided on religious grounds.
It added that besides British rulers, Western powers also want that by instigating the Muslims, the country should get divided into a few more Pakistans.
Pakistan encourages such tendencies -- the so-called secular leaders like "Mulla Mulayam" (Singh Yadav) and Miyan (Ram Vilas) Paswan" continue to divide Hindus and Muslims, it said.
"They (these leaders) do not want them (Hindus and Muslims) to live peacefully ever -- since it suits them politically," Saamna contended.
When even a person like Hashim Ansari, who gave 50 years of his life to fighting the case, has now started speaking the language of reconciliation and communal amity on the temple-mosque dispute, why is Mulayam spitting fire, Saamna asked.
Those who believe that the Ramayana is an imaginary legend do not have proof that the Bible and Quran are not mythological, it said.
The Saamna urged that if Muslims respected the views of Justice Khan in his judgement and learnt from his wise words, then the country would be rid of all ills and one of the most horrifying issues confronting the country can be resolved.
The Ayodhya verdict, given by the Lucknow bench of the high court, has divided the disputed land into three parts - one for Ram temple, one for the Nirmohi Akhara and one for the Sunni Central Wakf Board, the three litigants.
Mumbai: Calling him a patriot, the Shiv Sena Monday heaped praises on Justice S.U. Khan of the Allahabad High Court, which last week ruled that the Babri Mosque was built at the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya.
First Published: Monday, October 04, 2010, 14:01