Speed

That’s because the land issue became a problem long after the mosque was built.

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.

Meaning the land was probably under control of the Mughals who probably removed the old temple.

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.

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.

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.

2010 judgement

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.

a full 9 years later when BJP was in power

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.

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.

Ah yes, the USA, the famous arbiter of truth. 🤡

Pot calling the kettle black, lmao.

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.

Israel made an unsuccessful attempt back in 2019, if I'm right.