Both the Kingdom and the Muslim world have lost a distinguished scholar. Sheikh Abdulaziz dedicated his life to science, Islam, and the welfare of Muslims. King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman offered their condolences to his family and the global Muslim community.

Sheikh Abdulaziz also served as the President of the Council of Senior Scholars, promoting Islamic values and community harmony.

Funeral prayers will be held at the Imam Turki bin Abdullah Mosque in Riyadh. King Salman has directed absentee prayers in Mecca, Madinah, and across the Kingdom’s mosques following afternoon (Asr) prayers.

His legacy will inspire future generations, highlighting his profound impact on many lives.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper revoked his travel permission after The Telegraph revealed his upcoming tour of London, Manchester, and Birmingham, titled “Waking the Dead – Returning from the Darkness.” The Home Office concluded his presence was “not conducive to the public good,” citing concerns over public safety and social cohesion.

“Sheikh Farooq will not be permitted to enter the UK,” a Home Office spokesperson confirmed. “Our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and our communities. We have robust safeguards in place to prevent entry of individuals who seek to sow hatred and division.”

Airlines have reportedly been instructed not to allow Sheikh Farooq to board flights to the UK.

Preacher Under Fire for Comments on Slavery and Women

Sheikh Farooq, who is based in San Diego and affiliated with the One Message Foundation, stirred widespread condemnation after a video surfaced in which he claimed that sexual relations with female slaves captured in war were permissible under Islamic law.

Explaining his view in the video, he said: “Those taken under war as captives… you’re now going to support and keep in your house… they are like a wife… if Allah made it halal, then it’s not sinning, that is not adultery.”

His comments have drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates, secular organizations, and Muslim community leaders alike.

Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Faith Matters, condemned the preacher’s statements as “abhorrent,” adding, “Saying that sex with slaves is permissible sends a barbaric message to people. We’ve seen what groups like ISIS did to Yazidi women. Such views should not find a platform in the UK.”

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, said: “Any charity hosting a speaker who condones sexual slavery should have its charitable status seriously reviewed. Promoting misogyny undermines public benefit and social harmony.”

Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary, had earlier called on the government to prevent the preacher’s entry. “This man should never step foot on UK soil. His visa must be revoked immediately,” he stated. “Islamists spreading hate and sowing division are not welcome here.”

Sheikh Farooq previously toured parts of the UK last month, delivering lectures that also raised concerns. He has made remarks predicting the Islamization of Europe, the US, and Russia, saying, “The future is ours… every nightmare of a Muslim Europe will come true.” He urged Muslims to “never apologize” or “compromise” their faith.

In another appearance in Leicester, he made comments perceived as anti-Semitic, adding to the backlash.

Sheikh Farooq was set to appear alongside Ustadh Imran ibn Mansur, a social media figure who brands himself a Muslim entrepreneur. Mr. Mansur has shared videos advising Muslim women to create anonymous online content and has made controversial statements about women wearing perfume, calling them “fornicatresses.”

The UK government’s move reflects a broader effort to counter extremist ideologies, particularly those that incite hatred or undermine democratic values. The decision signals zero tolerance for individuals espousing regressive or inflammatory views, regardless of religious affiliation.

The ban underscores Britain’s commitment to ensuring that religious discourse does not become a platform for misogyny, antisemitism, or hate speech cloaked in theological justifications.

A storm is brewing on social media following a fiery post by Brother Imran, also known officially as Mujtaba Hussain Siddiqui, a Indian-origin Islamic preacher based in the United States, lashed out at corrupt Muslim leaders and their supporters for the massive encroachment of Waqf properties in the Indian state of Telangana.

Waqf lands—charitable endowments meant to benefit the Muslim community, particularly the poor—have long been plagued by corruption and mismanagement. According to Imran’s post, a staggering 14,949 acres out of a total 16,570 acres of Waqf land in Hyderabad and Cyberabad (Ranga Reddy District) have been illegally occupied.

In language that was both impassioned and inflammatory, he condemned those responsible, calling them “bastards” and accusing them of nurturing “illegitimate generations” on stolen charity land. He alleged that these individuals have used embezzled Waqf properties to acquire luxurious assets and real estate not only across India but also abroad in cities such as London, Melbourne, Sydney, Chicago, and Rome.

“These criminals seized land meant for the poor Muslim community and turned it into personal wealth,” Imran wrote, adding a fierce prayer for divine justice—“May Allah destroy their generations before their eyes just as they destroyed the hopes of the poor.”

The remaining unencroached land, according to him, is only 1,621 acres—a fraction of what was originally intended for communal welfare.

His post has drawn both support and criticism. Some social media users praised his courage in speaking out against entrenched corruption, while others questioned his use of harsh language and called for more constructive forms of activism.

The issue of Waqf land encroachment is not new in India, and activists have long demanded stronger protections and transparency in its management. However, voices like Brother Imran’s bring renewed attention—albeit in polarizing fashion—to a deeply rooted problem.

As the debate intensifies, the question remains: will this spark meaningful reform, or simply add fuel to an already divided discourse?

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

Last week, India’s Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at reforming the management of Islamic charitable endowments known as Waqf properties. This move has sparked significant unease among Muslim organizations, civil society groups, and opposition political parties in the country. Despite appeals to India’s President, Droupadi Murmu, to withhold her approval, the bill has now been enacted into law.

Prominent political figures, including Muslim parliamentarians such as Asaduddin Owaisi of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad Muslimeen, Mohammed Jawed of the Indian National Congress, and Amanatullah Khan, a Delhi legislator and chairman of the local Waqf Board from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have filed legal challenges in India’s Supreme Court, questioning the bill’s alignment with the nation’s constitution.

In contrast, Sanjay Raut, a member of parliament from Shiv Sena (UBT)—a regional political party—has indicated his party’s decision not to oppose the legislation, suggesting a divergence of views even among the government’s critics.

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government defends the bill, asserting it is in the nation’s best interest. Key officials, including Kiren Rijiju, the Minister of Minority Affairs, and Amit Shah, the Minister of Home Affairs, have repeatedly emphasized that the law does not infringe on Muslim rights. Instead, they argue it seeks to improve the efficiency of Waqf Boards—bodies responsible for overseeing these endowments. The government has dismissed opposition claims that the bill undermines constitutional protections as baseless.

Nevertheless, a coalition of Muslim organizations, individuals, and opposition parties continues to argue that the legislation threatens the sanctity of mosques and graveyards managed under Waqf. Labeling it unconstitutional, these groups are mobilizing for nationwide protests, including large-scale sit-ins and street demonstrations, to demand the law’s repeal.

The Historical Context of Waqf Management

Before jumping to support calls for protests, it’s worth exploring the historical management of Waqf properties—endowments established under Islamic law for charitable purposes—since India’s independence in 1947. This moment of controversy offers a chance to reflect on how these assets, meant to serve religious and social welfare, have been handled over decades.

A 2011 report by the Sachar Committee, a government-appointed panel studying the socio-economic conditions of Indian Muslims, alongside data from the Central Waqf Council, revealed that over 50% of Waqf land in India is either encroached upon or tangled in legal disputes—a striking indicator of systemic mismanagement across regions and political regimes.

In Telangana, a southern Indian state never governed by the BJP, approximately 75% of Waqf land is reportedly encroached upon, with the figure rising to 82% in its capital, Hyderabad. This underscores that the problem transcends any single political party or central policy. These statistics challenge the narrative that the current uproar is solely a result of the national government’s actions and prompt scrutiny of the role local Waqf Boards and regional leaders played in allowing such widespread losses to occur.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Results

For decades, the administration of Waqf properties—intended to fund education, healthcare, and welfare initiatives—has failed to deliver on its charitable promise. Despite controlling vast assets, the benefits to India’s Muslim community remain limited. This raises pressing questions about who has truly profited from Waqf properties since India’s independence, who bears responsibility for the encroachments, mismanagement, and misuse of these lands, and how many schools, hospitals, or welfare centers have been established using Waqf resources.

Furthermore, what actions were taken against those who exploited these endowments, and in what measurable ways has Waqf contributed to the economic advancement of Muslims? Calls for accountability and reform in Waqf management should have surfaced long ago. Instead, the same organizations now rallying for protests—many of which oversaw this decline—are accused of stirring emotions for political leverage.

Critics argue these self-proclaimed “guardians” of the Muslim community have historically mismanaged Waqf resources, often prioritizing personal or political gain over communal welfare.

The Myth of Wake-Up Calls

Much has been said about “wake-up calls” to galvanize India’s Muslim community. Yet, the reality suggests that community leaders and Waqf custodians were never dormant—they were simply focused elsewhere.

Many Waqf properties have been illegally occupied, with rents kept artificially low, allowing beneficiaries to exploit them for decades without oversight or adjustment. This pattern of neglect raises doubts about the sincerity of those now decrying the new law.

The Pattern of Response to Legislation

A recurring trend emerges in how certain groups react to laws perceived to affect Muslim interests in India. When the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) were introduced—policies aimed at streamlining citizenship processes—similar fears were ignited, with claims that Muslims would be stripped of citizenship. Years after the CAA’s implementation, no widespread evidence of such disenfranchisement has emerged.

This history prompts questions about the opposition to the Waqf Amendment Bill: Are objections rooted in genuine threats to religious rights, or do they reflect an automatic resistance that ultimately serves political agendas rather than community well-being?

The Human Cost of Protest Without Protection

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

During the CAA-NRC protests, fears of mass citizenship loss fueled widespread unrest. Yet, as Minister Kiren Rijiju noted during the Waqf bill debates, no Muslims have lost citizenship under CAA. Still, the fallout from such movements lingers: young Muslims arrested during protests against CAA, NRC, and earlier laws like the Triple Talaq ban often remain in jail, lacking legal or financial support from the groups that spurred them into action.

In Muzaffarnagar, a city in northern India, 24 Muslim youths faced legal notices simply for wearing black armbands as a symbolic dissent—not even a full protest—each required to post a ₹2 lakh (approximately $2,400 USD) bond. In Ahmedabad, a western Indian city, around 40 people were detained during demonstrations.

These cases highlight the risks to ordinary citizens when protests lack strategic planning, legal backing, or institutional support.

Before heeding new calls to protest, communities deserve to know whether organizers have secured proper permissions from authorities, are prepared to provide legal aid to those arrested, have a legal team in place, will accept responsibility for the outcomes, and will support the families of detainees financially and emotionally.

The Path Forward: Reform and Accountability

The current Waqf management system demands overhaul. Transparency, accountability, and effectiveness must take precedence over political maneuvering. Rather than blanket opposition, India’s Muslim community could benefit from demanding targeted amendments to problematic clauses in the bill instead of outright rejection, proposing governance models that balance religious autonomy with accountability, establishing independent oversight to track how Waqf resources serve the community, creating forums for community input into Waqf decisions, and developing long-term plans to leverage Waqf assets for education, healthcare, and economic growth.

From Reaction to Responsible Engagement

India’s Muslim community faces a pivotal choice. The current approach lacks strategy, unified leadership, negotiation, or internal reform—just a repetitive cycle of politicization until issues reach the courts. Continuing this pattern of protest and division is an option, but so is redirecting energy toward ensuring Waqf properties fulfill their charitable mission. The community must resist further manipulation.

For decades, Waqf assets have been plundered while leaders stood by. Now, as the government pushes for accountability, some of these same figures are accused of misleading the public once more.

True leadership goes beyond rallying crowds—it requires vision, strategy, and responsibility. By advocating for reforms that bring transparency and efficiency to Waqf management, the community can ensure these resources uplift its most vulnerable members and build enduring institutions for future generations.

The challenge is not merely whether to oppose a law, but how to ensure the sacred trust of Waqf serves its intended purpose: benefiting the community it was created to support.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The end of USAID’s current aid structure should not mean the end of US support for Africa.

Even when it comes to international aid and assistance, strategic geopolitical interests are always at play. Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the results of the review of programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development. This review resulted in an 83 percent cut in aid, significantly affecting many African countries. The decision has reignited debates about the ongoing competition between the US and China in Africa and the heightened risk of humanitarian crises that could arise from these funding reductions.

While competition for influence in Africa is a reality, framing it as part of a great power struggle is misleading. The US and China have taken vastly different approaches to engagement in Africa, and these cuts to USAID funding are unlikely to significantly alter China’s long-term strategy. Moreover, the presence of USAID has not deterred China from expanding its influence on the continent. Instead, the changes in US policy open the door for a fresh approach to American support—one that prioritizes African responsibility and transparency over unchecked aid flows.

According to the Congressional Research Service, sub-Saharan Africa has been the largest regional recipient of American foreign assistance. Over the past decade, the State Department and USAID have administered approximately $8 billion in aid annually to Africa. Countries such as Nigeria, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa have been among the primary beneficiaries. In addition to direct US aid, African nations also receive assistance through other American agencies and Washington’s contributions to multilateral organizations.

Over the past decade, about 70 percent of American aid to Africa has been allocated to health programs, with a primary focus on HIV/AIDS. Additional funding has supported agriculture, economic growth, security, democracy promotion, human rights, and education. Several major initiatives, such as the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Feed the Future, and Power Africa, have been instrumental in addressing key issues. However, most aid is delivered through contractors, nongovernmental organizations, and multilateral bodies, rather than direct government-to-government assistance. This indirect distribution has created inefficiencies, as significant portions of the funds go toward administrative costs rather than directly benefiting the people in need.

This inefficiency is not unique to USAID; rather, it is a common issue in most foreign assistance programs and charitable organizations. A considerable portion of aid funds is used to cover operational expenses rather than achieving tangible results. The complexity of cross-border programs further exacerbates this issue, making positive change slower and less efficient. In the case of USAID, these inefficiencies have been particularly pronounced.

Despite these challenges, the US should not abandon Africa altogether. Instead, a recalibrated approach is needed—one that fosters real and positive change while reinforcing African leadership. The situation is somewhat analogous to Europe’s security dilemma, where strategic recalibration rather than complete withdrawal is the key. Africa deserves the generosity of the American people, but Washington must ensure that aid is allocated and executed in a manner that maximizes impact. This should be viewed as a reset, not a cancellation.

US aid policy must move beyond ideological motivations and focus on solving real problems while reducing Africa’s reliance on perpetual foreign aid. The ultimate goal should be to empower African leaders and institutions to take control of their economic future. Two key areas require immediate attention: poverty alleviation and the empowerment of local management. However, healthcare remains the most urgent concern.

Africa is paradoxically both a land of immense natural wealth and extreme poverty. Despite possessing some of the world’s largest mineral reserves—including gold, diamonds, platinum, copper, and uranium—many African nations continue to struggle with severe economic hardship. Control over these resources has historically been a source of military conflicts and external interventions. Similarly, Africa is a major producer of oil and gas, with countries such as Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria leading in petroleum reserves, while Libya and Egypt play significant roles in gas production. Additionally, Africa’s vast renewable energy potential, particularly solar power in the Sahara, holds the promise of transforming the continent’s energy landscape.

While Africa’s agricultural potential remains largely untapped, it is home to 60 percent of the world’s uncultivated arable land. It already leads in the production of commodities such as cocoa, coffee, tea, and timber. The region’s fisheries offer another source of economic promise. However, the reality is starkly different from these theoretical potentials. The disconnect between Africa’s resource wealth and its persistent poverty highlights the shortcomings of foreign aid and its structural inefficiencies. Rather than fostering self-sufficiency, aid has often perpetuated dependency while allowing external powers to gain control over resources in exchange for minimal infrastructure development.

This historical pattern has, in some ways, shifted the burden of economic responsibility away from African leaders and onto Western powers. In doing so, it has given external actors near-unfettered access to Africa’s wealth in return for relatively minor developmental contributions. By contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s approach to engagement in Africa has generally been more pragmatic and mutually beneficial, earning it greater respect and acceptance.

For these reasons, the end of USAID’s current aid structure should not mean the end of US support for Africa. Any new American approach should prioritize helping Africa gain control over its own resources and development trajectory. This strategy should not be driven by a desire to counter Chinese or Russian influence but rather by the genuine spirit of American generosity and ethical responsibility. Such an approach would lay the foundation for a more sustainable and mutually beneficial US-Africa partnership.

A reformed aid strategy should focus on infrastructure development, technology transfer, and education to empower African nations to manage their own wealth effectively. Economic partnerships should replace traditional aid, ensuring that Africa is not merely the recipient of assistance but an active participant in its own development. Strengthening governance and transparency mechanisms will be crucial to ensuring that resources are used effectively and equitably.

The US has a unique opportunity to redefine its role in Africa. By shifting from a model of dependency-driven aid to one that fosters self-reliance, Washington can build a stronger and more lasting alliance with African nations. The ultimate goal should be to create a framework where aid is no longer necessary because African nations have developed the capacity to manage their resources and economies independently. In doing so, the US can demonstrate that its support for Africa is not just about competing with other global powers but about upholding a genuine commitment to the continent’s long-term prosperity.

Whether the bill is truly an infringement on religious freedoms or a necessary step toward greater transparency and accountability in Waqf administration

India’s Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, has ignited widespread debate and strong reactions, particularly within the Muslim community. Many critics argue that the proposed changes pose a serious threat to the sanctity of religious endowments, raising concerns about potential government overreach and the erosion of long-held community rights.

The controversy has fueled protests, social media discussions, and legal debates, with different factions interpreting the bill’s provisions in varying ways.

Amid the uproar, a detailed analysis by senior journalist Harsh Ranjan, published in The Statesman newspaper, sheds light on the actual intent and implications of the amendment. His article aims to cut through misinformation and present a fact-based breakdown of the bill, explaining how it seeks to address longstanding issues of mismanagement, corruption, and land encroachments within Waqf properties.

By offering a balanced perspective, the analysis clarifies whether the bill is truly an infringement on religious freedoms or a necessary step toward greater transparency and accountability in Waqf administration.

The Purpose of Waqf and the Need for Reform

Waqf properties are meant to serve the welfare of the Muslim community, supporting initiatives such as education, healthcare, and religious activities. However, over the years, numerous instances of land grabbing, fraudulent claims, and misuse by politically connected individuals have come to light.

Instead of benefiting underprivileged Muslims—particularly women—Waqf properties have often been exploited for personal gains.

Despite multiple amendments in the past, previous laws failed to address these concerns effectively. The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, is a legislative attempt to correct these issues by ensuring that Waqf properties are protected and utilized as originally intended.

Key Features of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024

The Bill introduces several crucial measures aimed at transparency, accountability, and legal ownership verification. Below are the major aspects of the amendment:

1. Protection of Waqf Properties Through Digital Record-Keeping

One of the primary concerns with Waqf property management has been the lack of proper identification and record-keeping.

The amendment mandates:

• Digitization of all Waqf properties.
• Prevention of encroachments through better documentation and transparency.
• Swift resolution of disputes related to Waqf properties.

By introducing a digital registry, the bill aims to curb unauthorized claims and fraudulent transactions, ensuring that endowments remain dedicated to their intended charitable and religious purposes.

2. Restriction on Fraudulent Waqf Declarations

A key change is the restoration of the pre-2013 definition of Waqf property dedication. The 2013 amendment allowed any person to dedicate property as Waqf, which led to numerous fraudulent claims. The new amendment:

• Limits Waqf dedication to legal owners of the property who are of the Islamic faith.
• Requires the person dedicating a property to have been practicing Islam for at least five years.
• Mandates verification of ownership before Waqf status is granted.

This measure ensures that only genuine religious endowments are recognized and prevents fraudulent conversions of property into Waqf status.

3. Removal of the “Waqf by User” Clause

Previously, properties could be classified as Waqf based on long-term usage rather than legal documentation. This led to disputes where even government-owned properties were wrongly classified as Waqf.

The amendment:

• Requires formal Waqf deeds for any new Waqf declaration.
• Protects existing registered Waqf properties unless they are in dispute or government-owned.
• Prevents unauthorized claims over public and private properties.

4. Clarification of Muslim Charitable Trusts’ Status

To prevent the wrongful takeover of independent Muslim charitable trusts by Waqf Boards, the bill clarifies that trusts established under separate statutory provisions will not be treated as Waqf properties. This prevents undue interference and ensures that Muslim charitable organizations operate freely.

5. Mandatory Registration of Waqf Properties on the WAMSI Portal

A major administrative issue has been the failure to upload Waqf records on the Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) portal. The bill makes it compulsory for all Waqf properties to be registered online within six months, ensuring greater transparency and accessibility.

6. Prevention of Wrongful Declaration of Government Properties as Waqf

Several cases, such as the disputed 123 Waqf properties in Delhi and conflicts involving the Surat Municipal Corporation, highlighted the issue of government properties being wrongly classified as Waqf. The amendment:

• Introduces Section 3C, requiring verification by a designated state-appointed officer before government property can be declared as Waqf.
• Ensures that public assets are protected from wrongful appropriation.

7. Transfer of Waqf Surveys to the Collector’s Jurisdiction

To improve efficiency, the amendment shifts the responsibility of pending Waqf property surveys from Waqf Boards to the jurisdiction of the Collector, who will follow state revenue laws for surveys and verification.

8. Strengthening Governance and Accountability of Waqf Boards

State Waqf Boards have long been criticized for corruption, mismanagement, and lack of accountability.

The amendment includes:

• Mandatory monthly meetings for Waqf Boards to ensure regular oversight.
• Requirement for all new Waqf registrations to be verified by the Collector before approval.
• Omission of Section 40, which previously allowed Waqf Boards to declare any property as Waqf without scrutiny.

9. Stricter Disqualification Criteria for Mutawallis (Custodians of Waqf Properties)

To prevent misuse of Waqf assets, individuals involved in malpractices will be disqualified from serving as Mutawallis. This measure ensures that only responsible custodians oversee Waqf properties.

10. Strengthening Legal Mechanisms for Waqf Disputes

The amendment introduces a structured legal framework:

• Appellate Mechanism: Section 83(9) allows for tribunal decisions to be challenged, strengthening judicial remedies.
• Applicability of the Limitation Act: This prevents indefinite litigation, ensuring timely resolution of disputes.
• Removal of Section 108A: This section previously granted Waqf laws overriding authority over other legal provisions. The amendment removes this, ensuring consistency in legal applications.

A Step Towards Transparency and Reform

India’s Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, brings much-needed reforms aimed at curbing corruption, preventing unauthorized claims, and ensuring better management of Waqf properties. By emphasizing transparency, legal ownership verification, and administrative accountability, the bill seeks to restore the credibility of Waqf Boards while protecting the interests of both the Muslim community and the larger public.

While concerns exist about the bill’s impact, its focus on proper governance and fair property management signals a move towards a more just and transparent system. However, it remains to be seen how effectively the new provisions will be implemented to safeguard Waqf assets for their intended purposes.