According to him, sectarian differences cannot justify the exclusion of Muslims from public mosques
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi chairs a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan at the Supreme Court in Islamabad, Thursday, January 15, 2026. Photo: Supreme Court of Pakistan
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court urged restraint against unnecessary judicial intervention in mosque-related disputes that could disrupt peace and public order, while observing that sectarian differences generally cannot deprive Muslims of their right to worship in public mosques.
In a detailed four-page order written by Justice Shakeel Ahmed, the SC observed that disputes over mosques involve not only private claims but also broader public rights, and therefore require sensitivity to communal harmony and the sanctity of places of worship.
These observations were made during a dispute between two sects over the management and use of a mosque.
“We find it appropriate to observe that disputes regarding mosques involve not only private claims but also public rights, and the courts have always discouraged multiplicity of litigation in such cases where amicable or administrative settlement is possible. It is desirable that disputes relating to the management, use or administration of mosques be resolved with sensitivity to the community at large, in order to maintain harmony, protect the sanctity of places of worship and avoid a unnecessary judicial intervention that could disrupt public peace and order,” the order reads.
The judgment further held that mere sectarian labeling does not automatically turn a public mosque into an exclusive sectarian property and that disputes over management should not deprive Muslims of their right to worship.
A division bench of the SC headed by Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan observed that the controversy raised important legal and constitutional questions regarding the status of a mosque in Islam, the right of worship of different sects, the scope and application of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with res judicata and the role of administration in maintaining peace and public order.
The court further noted that in Islam, a mosque is not merely a physical structure but a sacred institution representing the principles of Tauheed, unity, brotherhood and equality among believers.
“The concept of the mosque reflects the collective spiritual life of the Muslim community, where distinctions of lineage, wealth or social status dissolve in the shared act of worship. The Holy Quran repeatedly emphasizes unity and cohesion among believers.”
The order further emphasizes that Islamic injunctions demonstrate that a mosque is not reserved for a particular group but is dedicated to the worship of Allah and the spiritual communion of the Muslim community.
“The importance of congregational worship is emphasized in the traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who stated in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that prayer offered in congregation is twenty-seven times superior to prayer offered individually.
Historical practice during its lifetime further illustrates the inclusive nature of the mosque: the Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina was open to all Muslims regardless of color, lineage, or tribal affiliation, while the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca welcomes Muslims of different schools of thought, who, despite legal differences in matters of jiqh, stand side by side in prayer in the same sacred precinct.
The court categorically stated: “Islam does not recognize sectarian segregation in places of worship. All major schools of thought, including Sunnis (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali) and Shiites (Jafri), share the same Qibla, the Quran and the fundamental pillars of Islam. »
He further observed: “Minor ritual differences, such as raising one’s hand (Raf’ ul-Yadain), saying Ameen loudly or silently, or crossing one’s arms during prayer, are legal differences {ik.htilaf-e-fiqhi}, not differences of belief, and are insufficient to exclude any believer from access to mosques. »
Referring to constitutional protections, the order states that under Article 20 of the Constitution, every citizen has the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to law, public order and morality, while every religious denomination has the right to establish and maintain its religious institutions.
“However, once a mosque is consecrated as a waqf, it generally becomes a place of public worship, unless it is specifically shown to be a private mosque. The general principle is that mosques are for Allah and for all Muslims, and no Muslim can normally be prevented from praying there, unless their presence creates a clear and imminent breach of the peace.”
The court also clarified that: “The mere inscription of ‘Masjid Able Tashi’ on the facade of a mosque does not, in itself, confer legal authority to exclude other Muslims, unless the dedication and use of the mosque specifically demonstrates that it is a private faith-based waqf.”
At the same time, the order recognized the role of civil administration in conflict prevention.
“Where differences in the method or practice of prayer are likely to give rise to serious disturbance, the district administration may, in exercise of powers under Sections 144, 145 and 107 of the Cr.PC, temporarily regulate the use of the mosque in order to preserve public order and tranquility.”
Regarding the question of res judicata, the Court observed that the doctrine applies only when the question directly and substantially at issue is the same, involves the same parties and has already been finally decided by a competent court.
