"No temple was demoleshed for constructing the mosque"

That the court judgment on Ayodhya has finally been delivered and the initial reactions from all sections strike a distinct note of reconciliation is welcome.
The verdict says that the disputed land of 2.77 acers is to be divided eqally among the two Hindu plantifs, the Nirmohi Akhara and and The Bhagwan Shri Ram Birajman, the deity ragarded as a jurisdic as a jurisdic person that can own the property, and the Sunni Waqf bBoard.The portion of the inner courtyard where the central dome of the Babri Masjid stood before its demolition and where the makeshift temple now exist is to be given to Hindus.The rest of the area where the Babri Masjid stood, including part of the inner courtyard and some part of the outer courtyard, is to be alloted to the Waqf Board.The Nirmohi Akhara is to be alloted the building that sttod in the outer courtyard of the premises, including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi, while it is to share the unbuilt area of the outer courtyard with Bhawan Shri Ram Birajman.

This is a Panchayat-Style decision to hold the religios peace rather than an exercise of legal reflection."this is a political decision not a court decision." says a senior advocate of SC.
Jistice S.U.  Khan and Justice Sudhir Agrwal has declared that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque and the verdict is "as per faith and belief of Hindus."
I was tought earliar that court knows nothing except evidwnce and proof.But now, it has started to pronounce its decision on the base of someone's faith and belief.Then, Why is SATI-PRTHA legally banned?BALI should too because it is the best way to make angry goddess happy.AND the more important thing is:why was the Muslim faith not considered??They also believe that where the mosque has been built once the place will be sacred forever.