Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Navigating the Good and the Bad

By Professor Faizan Mustafa Translated from Urdu by Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam 10 April 2025 Waqf Is An Integral Part Of A Muslim's Life And, Therefore, Is Part Of Their Freedom Of Religion. The Entire Waqf System Cannot Be Weakened Due To The Corruption And Mismanagement Of A Few Trustees. Is There No Corruption In Our Government Or Judiciary? So, Just Because There Is Corruption, Will The Entire Government Or Judiciary Be Blamed And Replaced? ----- Professor Bahaeddin Yediyildiz, a Turkish scholar specializing in Ottoman history and Waqf (endowment) institutions highlights the profound impact of Waqf during the Ottoman Empire, illustrating how they permeated various aspects of daily life. According to Yediyildiz, individuals were born in Waqf houses, slept in Waqf-provided cradles, consumed food and drink funded by Waqf resources, received education in Waqf schools, and, upon death, were buried in shrouds financed by Waqfs. This was just an aside (an incidental statement/Jumla Mu'taridah). But what it means is that during the Ottoman Empire, Muslims had donated their properties on a large scale for good causes. Legislation is a difficult task. We are not talking about divine laws. Humans are imperfect, so any law made by humans cannot be perfect. Even the constitution of India, which was drafted by the best minds of the country with the best intentions, contained provisions that required deletion, addition, and amendment. The Endowment Bill 2025, which has been approved by Parliament, is no exception to this. That is why the ruling party’s claim that this is a perfect law and the opposition’s criticism that there is no room for improvement are both wrong. The truth is never at extremes; it lies in moderation. If something good is in the bill, it should be praised, and if necessary, criticism should be made. Our constitution grants us the freedom to do so. The Prime Minister himself said in a recent podcast with Lex Friedman on March 15, 2025, that if democracy truly runs in your veins, you should accept it. Our scriptures tell us to always keep our critics close. Since things should always begin on a positive note, let's first look at the good features of the Waqf Bill. Section 3A states that “No person shall create a Waqf unless he is the lawful owner of the property and competent to transfer or dedicate such property”, meaning that only a legitimate owner can create a Waqf, which is exactly what Islam also commands. The proposal to include women, Muslims from other marginalized communities, and non-Muslims in the Waqf administration under Sections 9 and 14 should be welcomed, as diversity improves decision-making. It is also correct, as stated in Section 18, that Waqf can only be declared through a documented process, and thus, no new Waqf can be created verbally. This is accurate—creating a Waqf merely by word of mouth can later lead to issues. In Section 3(r) (IV), the inclusion of "the welfare of divorced women and orphans" is a positive step, even though these objectives were already encompassed under the broader term "welfare and such other purposes as recognized by Muslim law" in the previous legislation. Section 23 – Chief Executive Officer's Rank: The Bill proposes that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Waqf Board should be at least of Joint Secretary Rank in the State government, replacing the previous requirement of a Deputy Secretary. Section 83 – Chairman of the Waqf Tribunal: The composition of the Waqf Tribunal is amended to consist of a District Judge (or an equivalent rank) as Chairman, and an officer of Joint Secretary Rank as the other member. This replaces the earlier structure that included a Civil Judge as Chairman. Section 84 – Decision Timeline for the Tribunal: The Bill stipulates that the Waqf Tribunal must deliver its decisions within six months of the application, with an additional six months allowed if reasons are recorded. Section 64 – Removal of Trustee or Manager: Provisions are introduced to remove a trustee or manager if they fail to maintain proper accounts for a year without valid reason, or if they become a member of any organization declared illegal under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). What can be said about the flaws of the Act? How will it affect Muslims when it severely impacts the rights of non-Muslims themselves? It goes against the very concept of ownership, as it states that only a Muslim can create a Waqf. The correct position is that the owner of property is free to do whatever they wish with their property. While the Waqf Acts of 1954 and 1995 allowed only Muslims to create Waqfs, the 2013 amendment removed this unjust restriction. However, the 2024 Waqf Amendment Bill has reinstated the previous restriction by removing Section 104 and made it even stricter by insisting, in Section 3(r)(a), that only a Muslim who has been a practicing Muslim for the last five years can create a Waqf. This provision violates the property rights of non-Muslims because they are free to do whatever they wish with their properties. The 17th-century Fatawa Alamgiri, compiled by over 40 prominent scholars, clearly states that non-Muslims can also create Waqfs. In the case of Piraathu Peda Venkatasubaraidu vs. Haji Slar Sahib (1930), the Madras High Court observed that it is common for Hindu landlords to give Waqfs to Muslims living in their areas. Similarly, in Arur Singh vs. Badar Din (1940), the Lahore High Court upheld the right of a Hindu to dedicate his property for a Muslim cemetery. After independence, the Nagpur High Court also upheld the right of non-Muslims to create Waqfs in Moitisha vs. Abdul Ghaffar (1956). Since Hindu Endowment laws do not prevent non-Hindus from creating "Hindu Endowments," the arrangements mentioned in the amendment bill (2025) are against the principle of "One Country, One Law." Similarly, the "five-year restriction" on a Muslim is unreasonable and has no logical basis. Would the government be willing to impose such a restriction on the creation of Hindu religious or charitable endowments as well? The Waqf Board is not a body of Muslim Ulama or a private land mafia, but rather, it is a legal institution largely composed of individuals appointed by the government. If some undesirable people have been appointed by the governments, the entire "Waqf institution" cannot be blamed for it. In such cases, all the relevant governments should be held accountable. Although under Section 97, the government can issue instructions to the boards and, under Section 99, even take over their functions, this Bill has significantly reduced the powers of the boards. For instance, the annual share of income from the Waqf to the board has been reduced from seven percent to five percent, which will negatively impact the board’s financial health. The control of the board over trustees or managers has also been weakened. The situation has worsened by the provision allowing the consumer to end the Waqf’s commitment. This clause also contradicts the ruling in the M. Siddiq (2019) case related to the Babri Mosque, which clearly recognized the concept of Waqf by the user. Interestingly, Muslims were not able to prove the Babri Mosque as a Waqf. The court observed, "We recognize the principle of Waqf by the user, even in the absence of a Waqf deed or a clear declaration. Whether properties that have been used for a long period are Waqf or not is a matter of evidence." (Para 1134). In fact, it is only when the owner himself allows the use of the property over a long period that the property can be considered as Waqf by the user. This concept also exists in the laws governing Hindu religious properties. Tribunals may be flawed, but they help in expediting the resolution of specific cases, and we have almost 70 tribunals. Why does the government have such a lack of trust in tribunals when all their members are appointed by the government itself? Why can it not trust its own appointees? Section 107, which had excluded Waqf disputes from the Land Boundary Act, 1963, has been removed with the stated aim of improving Waqf performance. However, this will have the opposite effect because Waqf claims cannot be filed after the Waqf’s duration has ended, further weakening the Waqf system. Once again, the principle of "one nation, one law" is violated here, as such exemptions exist in Hindu Waqf laws, like Section 143 of the Telangana and Andhra Act, Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Act. While Hindu Waqfs operate under state laws, there has been a central law for Waqf since 1954. Land, too, is a state subject. Unlike the 1995 Act, Section 108B of the new bill also restricts states from formulating their own rules and regulations under the new law. No law is written in stone. It is hoped that the new law will be amended, and the problematic provisions will be reconsidered. Since we are a secular country, the state cannot spend money on religious institutions; Waqf properties essentially sustain such institutions. Waqf is an integral part of a Muslim's life and, therefore, is part of their freedom of religion. The entire Waqf system cannot be weakened due to the corruption and mismanagement of a few trustees. Is there no corruption in our government or judiciary? So, just because there is corruption, will the entire government or judiciary be blamed and replaced? Courtesy: Urdu newspaper Inquilab, April 5, 2025, New Delhi Translated from Urdu into English by Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam ……… Urdu Article: Waqf Amendment Bill: Both Good and Bad وقفترمیمیبل: اچھابھی ‘برابھی URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islam-politics/waqf-amendment-bill/d/135114 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism