- This topic has 69 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
SNo hindus don’t have anything similar
Christians do have a similar body which is Catholic Church
But no they can’t stake claim on any property and take it over
-
-
SIn the way it’s a religious institution that holds significant land
I didn’t mean in the privileges
It would have the same criticism that waqf did if that was the case
-
AThat significant land is mostly on lease. Also, there are different sects in the Christian community, and none of us go and claim land. If I were you I’d be very embarrassed with the comment you made.
-
SOh yea leased by whom? The British. For what purpose? Propagating christianity and they leased the land for peanuts lmao
and alot of the land is also donations? From whom? No surprise the British government.
I know there are different sects the name itself says ‘catholic’
So let’s not act like the church did smart business and acquired all this land
And i mentioned it already that unlike waqf the church couldn’t claim stake in any land they wanted
But they got free land so while the process might be different the end result of both is quite similar
-
AYou’ve lost the plot! All given by the Indian govt. Post independence.
>the name itself says ‘catholic’
What are you even talking?
>end result of both is quite similar
What’s similar?
-
SThe Church act was established in 1927 by the British government and land was donated to them by the British government and also leased by the British government
Most of the land they have is dated pre independence
>What are you even talking?
The catholic Church body
>What’s similar?
At the end both got land that’s not rightfully theirs
Waqf just did it because of congress post independence
Church didn’t steal land but they got it by the British government for free and got leased properties at peanuts
Read Saldhana and ORS vs The roman Catholic Church (it was backed by the British government as the case is dated to British India)
So many properties for inflation adjusted at around 13k rupees if I’m not wrong
13k rupees for whole buildings is peanuts
The only reason catholic Church doesn’t have too much action against It is it’s not governed by a single act the most government can do it is take the properties to court
-
AAgain and again you’re using one sect of Christianity. From your (chatgpt) pov please tell me what was donated to my brothers who are involved with temples and compare them with “Catholics”
-
SI didn’t know indiancatholicmatters.org is run by chatgpt bro mb dawg 😔
>please tell me what was donated to my brothers who are involved with temples and compare them with “Catholics”
Would u mind rephrasing it enough to make it make sense
-
A>indiancatholicmatters.org is run by chatgpt bro mb dawg 😔
How valid is this dawg? And again Catholics? Bruh 🤦🏾♂️
>
Would u mind rephrasing it enough to make it make senseYou literally quoted Catholics, which is again targeting a sect of Christianity.
Anyways since you drew a parallel, how much land/ etc was given to the Hindus, keeping aside the Babri ram mandir stuff aart?
-
S>How valid is this dawg? And again Catholics? Bruh 🤦🏾♂️
i mean it’s a christian website and i think you’ve misunderstood what I meant by catholic Church in not targetting Catholics or protestants or anyone
The catholic Church is the landowner hence their name is being taken
Similar to how the Roman catholic Church operates
>Anyways since you drew a parallel, how much land/ etc was given to the Hindus, keeping aside the Babri ram mandir stuff aart?
Hindus or sanatanis are the original inhabitants of this land wdym how much land were they given? The entire land is culturally theirs they aren’t to be given anything and there is no similar parallel to waqf board or the catholic Church in Hinduism
Unless you mean a specific dispute like ram mandir
Where ASI already proved that ram mandir did indeed exist before the masjid so it’s hindu land too
But either way muslims were compensated with land for a mosque in AyodhyaWhich on a side note has majority of its donations coming from hindus and not muslims
-
A>
The catholic Church is the landowner hence their name is being takenGod almighty! Seriously?
>
Hindus or sanatanis are the original inhabitants of this land wdym how much land were they given? The entire land is culturally theirs they aren’t to be given anything and there is no similar parallel to waqf board or the catholic Church in HinduismAnd where is it mentioned?
I understand your bias, it’s cool but please don’t unnecessarily drag the catholic Church. It’s extremely stupid.
-
SDo not tell me you think India was originally inhabited by people not hindus ☠️
Even romila thapar and irfan Habib would feel shy hearing your thoughts
Rigveda is older than abrahmic religions and it’s widely accepted i don’t mean to demean any religion in any way but it’s enough proof that Hindus inhabited this land
I’m the one with a bias? 😭 The original question was whether such things exist in other religions and i answered with the catholic Church and not once have u countered the points instead repeating the same thing over and over
-
LActually mate this particular topic on who/which religion originally inhabited india is pretty complex and long debatable. If i remember correctly the indus valley civilization had practices, rituals and many other things that is sort of relatable with very early forms of hinduism but not completely/properly. But this process of modern worshipping came after many trials and refinements. So to properly answer if christianity or muslims or hindus actually owned the land or inhabited the land is pretty far fetched. Tbh the land inhabited by our predecessors worshipped each elements for their blessings and they might not have enough knowledge to do this religion based thingy, but all in all a discussion for another topic.
-
-
A>The catholic Church is the landowner hence their name is being taken
Enough of your ignorance bru. You are just proving yourself to be an idiot.
>Hindus or sanatanis are the original inhabitants of this land wdym how much land were they given? The entire land is culturally theirs they aren’t to be given anything and there is no similar parallel to waqf board or the catholic Church in Hinduism
Where is the proof? What proof is there that this land was sanatan or Hindu? Accept the fact that this is a culturally diverse space.
-
SMy brother in Christ you so far have not been able to counter one point just saying words like ignorance misinformation doesn’t constitute anything g mein dam h counter any point I said and tell me it’s a lie.
>Where is the proof? What proof is there that this land was sanatan or Hindu? Accept the fact that this is a culturally diverse space.
Already quoted it with the rigveda and it’s widely accepted by even ‘real christians’ and historians
>Accept the fact that this is a culturally diverse space.
It is a culturally diverse country but saying that the original habitants weren’t hindus is just utter bs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SA lot of cases of churches putting crosses on gov land and claiming it in Kerala, in places like munnar.
-
-
DIf u are talking about religious institutions holding lands.. What do u think temples are? Most old temples have acres of land.. What do u think sanghas are? They usually lobby land from poor and govt except there are n number of different bodies with hindus but with muslims its majorly waqf
-
SDid they occupy that land like waqf or did they get it as donations from Britishers like the church?
Temples also pay taxes and are controlled by the government
Do enlighten me on how similar that is to waqf and the catholic Church?
Government enforces stringent control on these temples unlike waqf. Are they independent? No
-
-
-
MMisinformation. All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics. A significant number of Christians in India are non Catholics.
-
SI know sects exist
I know about protestants Catholics their differences origins everything very well
The organisation that owns land in India under christianity comes under the Roman catholic Church hence in India it’s called the catholic Church nothing else
-
-
SOh yea? Tell that to the OP I only answered his question
can’t counter with points so term it as hate lmao great job mr. dzousa or Daniel or Austin whatever u named yourself
-
-
-
MYou are partially correct, the most dangerous kind of correct. Yes, the catholic Church does own land in India, but so does every other denomination. It’s not just Protestants. A significant section of Indians are Methodists, Episcopals, Orthodox and many more. None of these have anything to do with Vatican or the Pope.
-
SThe Church Act 1939 i suppose i may be wrong (in the year) provides land under the name of the catholic Church
I understand all Christians aren’t Catholics but Catholics are Christians and in my original statement I made it clear that I’m talking about them
Even in old case files pre independence you’ll find the Roman catholic Church being the caseholder or defendant which is headed by the pope and was backed by the British government
Just to be clear the catholic Church holds the most land compared to other denominations mostly due to the land being pre independence and awarded by the British government under directions of the Roman catholic Church
Hence the name is taken I’m not insignifying or defaming other denominations if that was what u meant
-
-
-
-
-
-
QGo to Wikipedia mate. Illiteracy is no excuse to deny existence.
Waqf board in nutshell is entity that manages all the assets or properties donated by people of Muslim religion either for social welfare or charitable.
It’s equivalent to Hindus offering property/jewelleries to Baba’s or Hindu Matha.
As Muslims don’t have independent Matha, it’s maintained by a central entity called Waqf board, it’s caretaker of property pledged to it.
-
SBut in south whatever people donate to temple is distributed and top of that govt collect taxes on it and make their govt officer sit in temples. So it’s apple and oranges.
-
SAlso in North maximum temples were destroyed already by Muslims so their are actually no big temples and donations.
-
CWhy do you want to compare everything related to muslims.
I mean being as hindu majority, live your life yrrr
There’s soo much insecurity around Hindus in India . -
-
-
VSo you should fight the govt to improve laws related to your religious properties. But instead, Hindus of this country have completely surrendered to this govt and want others to face bullshit laws too.
-
-
-
-
-
PVery conveniently ignoring land grabing activities is also no excuse.
You can find countless such cases.
-
-
VBecause we have millions of Muslims in India who donate their money or property for the benefit of others. And those properties cannot be sold once donated because they don’t belong to any person. And that is exactly why govt wants to make changes: to illegally sell these valuable properties and fill their pockets because greed has taken over these non-civilians because the civilians are busy being ignorant and indifferent about these matters and about their rights.
-
-
Ahttps://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-tamil-nadu-waqf-board-claims-ownership-of-an-entire-village-there-s-a-temple-too-101663245541768.html?utm_source=ht_site_copyURL&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ht_site
Explain to me how this was a donated property of a Muslim practitioner. There are many other examples like this. But you start with explaining one.
-
-
VMadrasa curriculum:
https://archive.org/details/CurriculumDarseNizami/page/n2/mode/1up
The curriculum is listed starting from page 4.
-
-
-
RThis law doesn’t exist in most Muslim countries like Pakistan, afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia or Arab countries. There’s no reason for it in India as well.
But govt is too weak to remove it. BJP would need 2/3 majority before getting enough courage to remove it.
-
-
-
VIt doesn’t exist in Muslim countries because it is the responsibility of the Muslim ruler or govt to manage Waqf property, which they do. It was needed in India because it is a secular country with provisional autonomy given to each religious entity to manage their religious affairs as long as they don’t clash with the laws specified in the Constitution. This is analogous to how every individual has a right to manage his household affairs the way he sees fit as long as his actions don’t clash with the laws in the Constitution.
-
-
VBecause Muslims had no role in the independence of these countries, Muslims had no religious properties in these countries where the masjid built in these countries are as new as only a couple decades old.
Contrary to that, Muslims have had very long presence In India. They ruled over most of India and donated their lands and built hundreds of thousands of religious properties in India, they initiated the resistance against the British, they sacrificed themselves in millions on the same grounds they find themselves today: an attack on their identity and property.
Now don’t respond with “You made Pakistan in return of all of that”. We didn’t. Our forefathers opposed it and stayed in India only for one reason: to take care of these religious sites. But the country was still divided because people were tired of killing each other and there was no end to it. It was not because Gandhi willingly gave away half the country, it was because there was no choice left. All that happened because the politicians played that game for their own power. And after all the misery that your and our forefathers went through, we’re back to the same stage, all because it’s easier for politicians to keep us engaged in trivial issues instead of actually working on the development of the country and her people.
-
RNope. As per Islam, religious properties like mosques do not hold the same importance as Hindu religious sites. Mosques can be made anywhere. They’re regularly demolished and replaced in Arab counties. Waqf is just a land grabbing mafia.
-
VIt’s cute when people try to educate me on my own religion and history and pull facts out of thin air with such confidence “Nope, you’re wrong and I’m right even though I haven’t set a foot in a madrasa or read a single book on Islam.”
Obviously, mosques don’t hold the same value as temples for Hindus. Just like temples don’t hold the same values to Muslims. Just like neither of these hols the same value to atheists.
The simple fact that you people don’t understand is that it isn’t about architecture or anything else, it’s simply that no one person owns these sites. As soon as someone donates, say, 100 acres of his land to be waqf’d for the use of Muslims, he can’t take it back, its owners become the while Muslim community and it can’t be used for any other purpose than those that are for the benefit of the community, like mosques, graveyards, eidgah, schools, madrasas, gardens, wells, et cetera. And their use is supposed to be free. That’s what Waqf is. The building can be demolished and made anew if needed, but a Muslim can’t demolish a mosque and build a restaurant on that land.
-
RI think @calmguitar means objectively Hindus worship in a particular site (which has history to it, maybe a place where ram ji first prayed to shiv ji, maybe where ram ji were born, where shri krishi was born, for major pujas and havans and if you’re at your home it should be in a specific direction with lots of samagris and probably a fire involved… So on and so forth)
Whereas, in my limited experience I’ve seen people do namaz on any clean spot (be it on terrace, in the train) I’m assuming it’s good to go to a mosque and pray namaz but objectively it can be done anywhere as it involves just your body and a mat.
Now, i honestly never understood waqf board, since you seem knowledgeable, i have some basic doubts:
1) Is it a completely non-governmental body? Does it classify as an NGO?
2) please tell me if my understanding of it’s finances, operations and logic is correct.
It’s a ngo (and just like any other organisation) can claim any land that it thinks belongs to waqf, it claims and whatever 10-15 years roughly that land is disputed and after that time period if they win the case, it belongs to them, if they don’t, the other party gets the stay?
Supposedly, waqf board wins the case and the land belongs to it, the donors of waqf board pay for the operations for keeping the school, hospital, whatever made on it to be free? Or government pays a percentage?
3) Can they use just all the reasons mentioned in the law to lay claim for a particular land, or are their any special provisions under which waqf board can lay claims on a particular land parcel?
-
RNamaz can be done anywhere. Doesn’t have to be in a mosque. Mosques are not sacred religious places. They’re just a place to gather.
-
VYou’re still confidently blurting out completely wrong info. Namaz HAS to be performed in masjid AND with the other people. It’s called jamaat. A Muslim is strictly frowned upon if he prays at home instead of masjid. You can ONLY pray at another place if you don’t have access to a masjid for one reason or other.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PYa but in this case the “the household” is anything that decide, it can be your house too. Just a land grabbing mafia masquerading as a religious entity which needs swift elimination.
-
VEven the politicians who’ve brought the bill don’t make such an ignorant claim. But I’ll give you the chance to elaborate on how that happens and share references and proofs. And I’ll share proofs of how the Board does exactly the opposite of that by illegally selling Waqf property.
-
PYou dont need to give chance to anyone, just google, help urlself. You will find few links in this thread itself
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MBased on a variety of factors, there are a diverse set of quasi-state institutions which manage religious properties for different religions. Its a concurrent subject, so while Muslims have just a single Waqf Act, in some states Hindu temples are managed as per state laws with government involvement while other states have no such laws. Catholic churches are managed by the Catholic Church as private property. The SGPC manages Sikh gurudwaras in North India, but in other regions with prominent Sikh communities and/or gurudwaras such as in Maharashtra there are state specific laws. The Mahabodhi temple, which is revered by (and consequently has been a site of dispute) both Hindus and Buddhists is managed by a board comprising both communities.
These differences arise mainly due to differences in religious law, doctrine, customs and traditions. For example, take the Waqf act – the Sharia’a allows and encourages donation of property as waqf as an act of piety, and in circumstances where there are no heirs. Hence a law to manage such waqf property. Without any such law, there would likely be confusion and corruption. Regardless, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach, which is why temple management is a concurrent subject and every religion and in some cases different states have different laws.
-
-
SYour post is generic and does not have a substantial legal issue involved.
If you have questions about this removal, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/LegalAdviceIndia).
-
