47
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
47 points (98.0% liked)
World News
32296 readers
513 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I find it funny how the article makes no mention that the mosque was built by on top of the ruins of one of Hinduism's holiest sites. Nor does it mention that the Sunni Waqf Board was unable to prove ownership of the land; which is why the Supreme Court allowed the Hindus to build the Temple.
That's because the land issue became a problem long after the mosque was built.
It was built in the 16th or 17th century, but didn't become controversial until the 19th century.
Meaning the land was probably under control of the Mughals who probably removed the old temple. Even the old civil suits were thrown out by Hindu judges because they ruled that the land ownership was valid, and it was too antiquated to resolve giving the ruins back to the Hindus.
More importantly though, the supreme court overturned the 2010 judgement in 2019, a full 9 years later when BJP was in power.
You know the same supreme court that found Modi magically innocent of his involvement in the Gujrat Massacre which had him banned from travel into the USA for a decade.
So really this is just the type of news r/Chodi would be spamming if that shithole sub still existed.
This doesn't preclude anything I've said. The land issue did not become a problem because the Hindus continued to pray in the same building till the mid-1850s.
Mughals allegedly owning the land does not mean the Sunni Waqf board can claim ownership in the 21st century, lol. Besides, this is a moot point as the Mughals gave away the land to Sawai Jai Singh II.
Not really. The Hindu judge affirmed the Hindu plaintiff's claims over the courtyard, but denied permission to build a temple in the courtyard close to mosque as it would stoke communal tensions. Nowhere in the judgement was the Muslims' claims over the land validated.
The 2010 judgement was unable to prove exclusive ownership, and instead had the site partitioned into three. Besides, the judgement was rejected by all the parties involved.
Nice conspiracy theory. Unfortunately for you, court verdicts in India take time because the judiciary does not take orders from the army like in your country.
Ah yes, the USA, the famous arbiter of truth. 🤡