Says sectarian differences cannot justify exclusion of Muslims from public mosques
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi presides over a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan at the Supreme Court in Islamabad on Thursday, January 15, 2026. Photo: Supreme Court of Pakistan
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has urged restraint against unnecessary judicial intervention in mosque-related disputes that may disturb public peace and order, while sectarian differences cannot ordinarily deprive Muslims of their right to worship in public mosques.
In a detailed four-page order authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmed, the SC noted that disputes regarding 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.
The observations came during the case of a dispute between two sects over the management and use of a mosque.
“We find it appropriate to note that disputes over mosques involve not only private claims, but also public rights, and the courts have consistently discouraged multiplicity of litigation in such cases where an amicable or administrative solution is possible. It is desirable that differences relating to the management, use or administration of mosques be resolved to protect the community at large, so that the community can preserve more sensitively, the sanctity of places of worship, and avoid unnecessary judicial interventions that may disturb the public peace and order,” reads the executive order.
The judgment further held that mere sectarian labeling does not automatically transform a public mosque into exclusive church property and that disputes over leadership should not deprive Muslims of their right to worship.
A division bench of the SC headed by Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan observed that the dispute raised important legal and constitutional issues regarding the status of a mosque in Islam, the right of worship of various sects, the scope and application of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with judicial power, and the maintenance of the role of public order in peace and order.
The court further noted that in Islam, a mosque is not merely a physical structure but a sacred institution that represents the principles of Tauheed, unity, brotherhood and equality among believers.
“The mosque concept reflects the collective spiritual life of the Muslim community, where distinctions of descent, wealth or social status dissolve in the communal act of worship. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes unity and cohesion among believers.”
The order further observed that Islamic injunctions show that a mosque is not reserved for any particular group but is dedicated to the worship of Allah and the spiritual community 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 better than prayer performed individually.
Historical practices during his lifetime further illustrate the mosque’s inclusive nature: Masjid al-Nabawi in Madinah was open to all Muslims without distinction of color, descent, or tribal affiliation, while Masjid al-Haram in Mecca accommodates Muslims of different mindsets who, despite legal differences in relationship, should stand on the same terms. sacred areas.”
The court categorically stated: “Islam does not recognize sectarian separation in places of worship. All major schools of thought, including Sunni (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali) and Shia (Jafri), share the same Qibla, the Qur’an and the fundamental pillars of Islam.”
It further noted: “Minor ritual differences, such as raising hands (Raf’ ul-Yadain), saying Ameen loudly or silently, or folding arms during prayer, are legal differences {ik.htilaf-e-fiqhi}, not differences of creed, and are insufficient to exclude any believer from entering mosques.”
Citing constitutional protections, the Order stated 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 usually becomes a public place of 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 offering prayer therein unless his presence creates a clear and proximate breach.”
The court also clarified that: “The mere inscription of ‘Masjid Able Tashi’ on the facade of a mosque does not in itself provide legal authority to exclude other Muslims, unless the dedication and use of the mosque specifically show that it is the waqf of a private denomination.”
At the same time, the order recognized the role of the civil administration in preventing conflicts.
“Where differences in the method or practice of prayer are likely to give rise to serious disturbance, the District Administration, in exercise of powers under Sections 144, 145 and 107, Cr.PC, may temporarily regulate the use of the mosque in order to maintain public order and tranquillity.”
On the issue of res judicata, the court noted that the doctrine applies only when the direct and material issue is the same, involves the same parties, and has already been finally decided by a competent court.
