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.

Voting will be held in a single phase in Telangana and Rajasthan on December 7, and Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram on November 28, Rawat said, adding that Chhattisgarh will vote in two phases on November 12 and November 20. The BJP and the Congress will face head on in Madhya Pradesh (230 seats), Rajasthan (200) and Chhattisgarh (90), where the saffron is in power while in Telangana (119) the TRS is seeking a second term. In Mizoram (40) the Congress is the ruling party. The BJP is in power in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh for three consecutive terms while in Rajasthan power alternates between the two parties every election.

The Model Code of Conduct comes into force with immediate effect in four states while in Telangana it was in force from the date of dissolution of the Assembly last month. Notification for the first phase will be issued on October 16 and the last date for nominations would be October 23. Scrutiny will take place next day and the last date for the withdrawal of the nominations will be October 26. The notification for the elections in the rest of the 72 constituencies in the second phase would be issued on October 26, while the last day for nominations would be November 2. Scrutiny will be done on November 3 and the last date for the withdrawal of the nominations will be November 5. The tenure of the Chhattisgarh Assembly comes to an end on January 5, 2019.

In Telangana and Rajasthan, which will go to the polls in a single phase on December 7, the notification will be issued on November 12 and the last date for filing nominations will be November 19. Scrutiny will take place on November 20 while the last date for withdrawal of nominations will be November 22. The term of the Rajasthan Assembly expires on January 20, 2019. Telangana Chief Minister and TRS chief K Chandrasekhar Rao dissolved the House last month — nearly nine months before its term was to end.

The TRS is ahead of all parties with regard to election preparedness by announcing 105 candidates out of the total 119 seats in Telangana. The announcement of the candidates for the rest of the 14 constituencies will happen very soon, according to party sources. Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao has already launched electioneering in the state. In Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram, the notification will be issued on November 2 while the last date for nominations would be November 9. Scrutiny will be done on November 12 and last date of withdrawal will be November 14. While the term of the Assembly in Madhya Pradesh expires on January 7, the tenure 40-member Assembly in Mizoram expires on December 15.

In Chhattisgarh, where the Commission decided to go for two phases in view of the Maoist problem, voting will be held in the most affected areas of the 18 constituencies in the southern part on November 12 and in the remaining 72 seats, voting will take place on November 20. Asked about the criticism over rescheduling the time of the press conference from 12.30 pm to 3 pm and that it was done under pressure from Prime Minister to accommodate his election rally in Ajmer in Rajasthan, Rawat said there was no pressure from anywhere.

“There would not have been a delay of two-three hours but for the problem relating to electoral rolls in Telangana,” he said and added parties were free to complain to the Commission if somebody got a concession. “It is the duty of the Commission to satisfy all the stakeholders. We will hold free, fair and credible elections which is our commitment and compulsion,” he said. He said the existing electoral rolls in the all the states have been revised with reference to January 1, 2018 as the qualifying date. The CEC said the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPATs) will be used in the current round of elections for which arrangements have been made to ensure their adequate number.