'We are being insulted by giving (alternate) land. Don't treat us like us beggars,' Owaisi tweeted.
Hyderabad: AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has sought to know if Babri Masjid was illegal why were L K Advani and others being tried in connection with its demolition.
Addressing a public meeting here, the AIMIM president said, "If Babri Masjid was legal then why was it (land) handed over to those who demolished it. If it was illegal then why the case is going on and withdraw the case against Advani. And if it is legal then give it to me."
"It's a basic question... We are not satisfied with this judgement. Babri Masjid is my legal right. I am fighting for the Masjid and not the land," Owaisi said reacting to the Supreme Court's verdict on Saturday paving the way for construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.
On Sunday, Owaisi tweeted "Then what does a Muslim see today? There stood a mosque, for so many years, which has been demolished. Now the court is allowing a building to come up on that site, on an alleged finding that the land belonged to Ram Lalla."
"We are being insulted by giving (alternate) land. Don't treat us like us beggars... We are respectable citizens of India. The fight is for legal right," he said in another tweet.
"... we asked for justice, not charity. If your house is demolished and you go to an arbitrator, whether the house should be given to you or not. Should it be given to the demolisher?," he asked while reiterating that he was not satisfied with the judgement.
Claiming that even today BJP and RSS have a list of several mosques which they want to "transform," Owaisi said they (muslims) should fight for the Masjid.
He also questioned parties including, Samajwadi Party, BSP, Nationalist Congress Party on their "silence" over the apex court judgement.
Asserting that he would inform the coming generations of the Babri Masjid demolition, Owaisi urged the youngsters of the community to take part in politics and support his party.
Soon after the Ayodhya verdict was delivered on Saturday, Owaisi had said the Supreme Court judgment in the sensitive case was a "victory of faith over facts" and suggested rejection of alternative five-acre plot given for construction of a mosque.