The Waqf Amendment Act 2025: A Critical Analysis and the Path Forward for Indian Muslims

(Recently, the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 received presidential assent in India, becoming law and publishing in the official Gazette. This development has sparked significant debate, concern within the Muslim community, and celebration in some quarters. To understand the implications, we delve into a detailed discussion with Maulana Syed Aqib Zaidi Sahab Qibla, an expert who has extensively studied the issue of Waqf.)

Host: Welcome, viewers. Today is April 6th. Yesterday, April 5th, the Waqf Amendment Bill became the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 after receiving the President's assent and being gazetted. This has created a tense atmosphere, particularly among Muslims, who feel a sense of grief and anger. Conversely, some are celebrating it as a major step, a significant change. This presents a crucial opportunity to discuss Waqf in India, clarify our stance, and understand the potential consequences for the Muslim community and the nation. We are joined by Maulana Syed Aqib Zaidi Sahab Qibla, who has long been researching this topic. Maulana Sahab, welcome. What are your initial thoughts?

Maulana Zaidi: Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim. You've rightly identified this as a critical issue. Waqf itself is important, but today's discussion can also serve as a mirror, reflecting aspects of our past, present, and future.

Host: Maulana Sahab, my first question is: Do you believe this new Waqf Act brings about, or will bring about, a significant change in our country regarding this matter? How do you view it?

Maulana Zaidi: I agree with most analysts that this is indeed a significant change. The parliamentary debates themselves indicated its gravity. It's a major step, though its ultimate impact remains to be seen. However, I must add, its significance doesn't mean it's a sudden event without context. It's the latest development in a historical process concerning Waqf in India that stretches back perhaps 200 years or more. This isn't the final chapter either; the process will likely continue. So, yes, it's important, a potential historical turning point, but deeply connected to our history and background.

Understanding Waqf: Concept and Importance

Host: Let's start at the beginning. Could you explain the concept of Waqf and its significance for our audience?

Maulana Zaidi: Certainly. Waqf is an invention, an innovation – perhaps even a masterpiece – of Islamic civilization. You don't find an exact equivalent construct in other civilizations that balances so many dimensions and has played such a vital role in development. This uniqueness is perhaps why no single word in other languages can fully translate "Waqf," and why all related Acts in India, even under the British and post-Independence, have retained the name "Waqf Act," not "Charitable Endowments Act" or similar.

Essentially, Waqf occurs when an owner dedicates their property for a noble cause, for God's sake (fi sabilillah). They relinquish personal ownership, and the property's benefits are used for a specific good work, decided by the dedicator (the Waqif). So, property is dedicated to a charitable or pious purpose in God's path.

Waqf has played a monumental role. We all hear about the "Golden Age" of Islamic civilization – its educational institutions, welfare systems, etc. What's often missed is the central role Waqf played in creating and sustaining this Golden Age. Wherever Islam spread, it often brought urbanization, education, advancements in architecture, science, and technology. Waqf was a foundational element in this development everywhere.

It's something we can be proud of – an asset that revolutionized our civilization. It's no surprise other civilizations tried to emulate it. Research suggests that around the 13th century, as European educational institutions began developing outside the Church's direct control during the early Renaissance, they sought models. They found inspiration in Waqf. The modern concept of the 'Trust,' well-established in Indian law today for charitable purposes, has historical roots in attempts to replicate the Waqf model in Europe.

Conceptually, Waqf is incredibly strong and holds immense future potential. Consider the universal societal challenge of the wealth gap and inequality. A major issue is asset concentration in the hands of a minority. If a society can incentivize the wealthy – through worldly benefits but more importantly, the reward in the hereafter – to dedicate assets for public use, then resources that benefited few can benefit many. This concept, linking worldly and spiritual needs, material and divine rewards, can powerfully promote social equity – a desperate need in our country today.

Host: Following that, can a Waqif specify the exact purpose? For instance, dedicating property only for education, or only for alleviating poverty, or even for national development?

Maulana Zaidi: Absolutely. The Waqif has the right to specify and limit the purpose and even the beneficiaries (Mawquf alayhim in Fiqh) – be they students, the poor, widows, etc. And while land is commonly associated with Waqf, it's not limited. One can make Waqf of a book – how many Qurans and other texts have been dedicated throughout history! In today's world, perhaps even intellectual property could be made Waqf. Anything of value that can benefit others can potentially be dedicated.

Its conceptual strength allowed it to function effectively across 1400 years of diverse historical periods and geographical locations within Islamic civilization. This adaptability shows its power. It’s not just a historical artifact to be proud of; Waqf must play a fundamental role in any future vision we craft.

A Historical Perspective: Waqf in India

Host: That highlights its enduring significance. Could you shed light on the history of Waqf specifically within India?

Maulana Zaidi: History is crucial here. We can confidently say Waqf has existed in India for as long as Muslims have been here – at least 1300 years, possibly longer. The oldest documentary evidence we have dates back to the 12th century, about 800 years ago.

Over time, a well-developed, decentralized system emerged. Local Qazis (judges) would oversee the Mutawallis (trustees/managers of Waqf properties), offering guidance and supervision. Higher authorities in cities, like the Sadr-us-Sudur (a high-ranking official overseeing religious affairs), supervised the Qazis. It was an established system from local to higher levels, but decentralized – not run entirely from the capital. It was flexible, adapted to local conditions, and played a vital role.

During its peak, roughly the 17th century, India became a global center for trade and manufacturing, accounting for an estimated 20-25% of global trade (compared to less than 5% today). In this era of economic success, a significant part of the supporting infrastructure – karwan serais (traveler inns), roads, trees lining roads, bridges, warehouses, educational institutions – existed as Waqf properties (Mauqufat). So, Waqf significantly contributed to India's 17th-century economic zenith before the decline began in the 18th century.

The British Era: Decline and Disarray

The arrival of the British, starting in the mid-18th century, marked the beginning of the decline, even the dismantling, of India's Islamicate civilization. Every sphere suffered – education, health, trade collapsed. The British de-industrialized India and were responsible for widespread famines. The institution of Waqf suffered severely too.

Initially, the East India Company saw valuable Waqf properties, especially land. When they took over Bengal, India's richest province then, they found that about 1/4th (25%) of the registered cultivable land was Waqf – often the most fertile land, reflecting the sincerity of the Waqifs who dedicated their best assets in God's path, following the Quranic injunction: "You will not attain righteousness until you spend from that which you love" (Lan tanālul-birra hattā tunfiqū mimmā tuhibbūn).

The Company began looting these assets. Waqf properties were traditionally tax-free as their income served public purposes. The British imposed heavy taxes, reasoning it would cause less public anger than taxing private land. They systematically began destroying the Waqf system, starting in Bengal. Later, from around 1810, they introduced laws and decrees declaring Waqf lands as Company property. After looting extensively without legal cover, they used laws to inflict further damage.

By 1863, after nearly a century of destruction, the British declared non-interference in religious matters and effectively abandoned the remaining, weakened Waqf properties. This created a vacuum where lower-level exploiters took over. A state of mismanagement was established – first looted by the powerful, then left open for others.

By the early 20th century, educated, aware Muslims recognized the Waqf situation as a crisis, just as we do today. A demand arose from within the community to rectify the mismanagement. Muslims approached the British authorities – the very colonizers who had caused the destruction – demanding they intervene and manage Waqf affairs. This pressure largely came from the Western-educated Muslim elite (including figures associated with the newly formed Muslim League), perhaps less so from traditional scholars (Ulama) at that time, for various reasons.

Interestingly, the first major issue this elite pushed to resolve concerned Waqf alal Aulad – Waqf dedicated for the benefit of the founder's descendants in perpetuity, often created by wealthy landowners fearing future family disputes or profligacy. The British had invalidated this type of Waqf, causing distress among the elite. So, the initial push was to protect these family endowments, with attention turning to general public Waqf later. This reflects certain priorities or perhaps weaknesses within the Muslim leadership of that era.

This process continued, but without significant improvement. In the 1930s, the British finally established Waqf Board-like bodies in some provinces, but these were weak. Then came 1947 and Indian independence, ushering in a new era.

Host: This clarifies the contrast: Muslim rulers and landowners generally played a constructive, nation-building role through Waqf, while the British engaged in systematic looting, targeting Muslim properties disproportionately.

Waqf After Independence (1947 onwards)

Host: What has been the situation regarding Waqf since India's independence?

Maulana Zaidi: Post-1947, the initial period saw a continuation of the neglect and lack of proper management. The trauma of Partition created new difficulties, with many Muslims migrating, leaving Waqf properties vulnerable to encroachment. More importantly, a hostile atmosphere emerged suggesting Muslims had limited rights, should make no demands, and should be grateful just to be allowed citizenship – rhetoric sadly still heard today from certain malicious elements.

Illegal encroachments continued. The properties unjustly seized by the British were inherited by the Government of India. Sadly, even post-independence, government bodies themselves sometimes participated in new encroachments. Many government offices still operate from buildings that were clearly once Muslim properties.

However, some laws were enacted. The Waqf Act of 1954 was replaced by the Waqf Act of 1995. The current amendment modifies this 1995 Act. From the 21st century, institution-building accelerated: the Central Waqf Council (CWC), State Waqf Boards, Waqf Tribunals (post-1995 Act), the National Waqf Development Corporation (NAWADCO), and the Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) portal for digitization.

So, after initial decades of sluggishness, there was a noticeable increase in legislative and institutional activity, especially from the 1990s. Yet, the overall picture didn't improve drastically.

There were some positives. The 1995 Act had improvements over the 1954 one. A famous 1976 letter from the then Prime Minister to Chief Ministers explicitly acknowledged that governments were major encroachers on Waqf lands and suggested measures to stop this. Though not fully acted upon, this letter remains a significant official acknowledgment.

During this entire period (1947 until recently), Waqf wasn't a major topic of public discourse, neither among Muslims nor non-Muslims. It remained obscure for the general populace. Even the malicious forces celebrating the current Act didn't heavily focus on Waqf previously, unlike issues like the Uniform Civil Code, Babri Masjid, or Article 370. Waqf wasn't high on their agenda for mass mobilization until very recently. This was the situation just before the current chapter began.

The Sachar Committee and the Reality of Waqf Management

Host: Despite all this legislative and institutional activity, what were the actual results?

Maulana Zaidi: The Sachar Committee Report (2006), though nearly two decades old now, provides valuable insights in its dedicated chapter on Waqf. It addressed the impact of all these laws and institutions. The report estimated, very conservatively, that the potential annual income from registered public Waqf properties across India should be at least ₹12,000 crore (assuming a low 10% return on asset value). The actual reported income then? A mere ₹163 crore nationwide.

The problem of encroachment and adverse possession was so vast it couldn't even be accurately quantified, with estimates ranging from 50% to 70% of Waqf lands lost or illegally occupied – turned into malls, airports, government offices, and other developments, often on prime land.

So, despite decades of activity ostensibly aimed at restoring Waqf and fulfilling its purpose, the results show a profound lack of success.

The New Act: Necessary Change or Harmful Interference?

Host: If the situation was already so dire, doesn't that necessitate changes like this new amendment? Why the objections now?

Maulana Zaidi: Let me use an analogy. Imagine a patient who has been ill for a long time. The medicine isn't working; their condition is worsening. If the doctor proposes changing the medicine, everyone would welcome it. But if the doctor proposes replacing the ineffective medicine with poison, everyone would object strongly. The current objection isn't to change itself, but to the nature of the change being implemented – it feels like replacing medicine with poison.

Host: A very clear analogy. So, what specifically is objectionable in the new Waqf Amendment Act 2025?

Maulana Zaidi: This is the critical question preoccupying everyone. A full answer would be lengthy, as over 40 changes have been made. Thankfully, several analysts, particularly those critical of divisive forces in India, have already provided good breakdowns online, which viewers can explore. I'll highlight just a few key examples, distinguishing between symbolic and substantive changes, both being significant.

Symbolic Objections:

1. Name Change: The Act is renamed from "Waqf Act, 1995" to the "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act" (acronym UMEED - meaning 'hope'). This seemingly strips the name of its Islamic identity, its spiritual and pious connotations, reducing it to a mere asset management term. It's symbolic but shapes the mindset and attitude towards Waqf moving forward, potentially facilitating attacks on anyone opposing this 'hopeful' Act as being anti-progress or even anti-national, as some politicians have already suggested.
2. Mandatory Non-Muslim Members: The Act mandates inclusion of non-Muslims in bodies like the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. While two non-Muslim members might not drastically alter decisions in a large body, the symbolism is potent and dangerous. It violates the established norm in India where religious institutions (Sikh, Christian, Hindu temples) are managed solely by members of that faith. This is blatant discrimination, legally encoding something previously unacceptable. It echoes the objections to the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), where the core issue wasn't granting citizenship but the discriminatory exclusion of Muslims, creating a legal basis for second-class status. This provision does something similar for Waqf management.
3. Waqif's 'Practice' Requirement: The Act states that only someone "practicing Islam for the last five years" can create a Waqf. While some interpret this as targeting converts, the wording is general. It opens the door for administrative harassment. Imagine needing a District Magistrate's certificate confirming your five-year adherence to Islamic practices (prayer, fasting, beard, etc. – criteria undefined!) before you can dedicate property. This gives administrative machinery undue interference in a purely religious matter and allows the state to categorize Muslims based on perceived piety – something even Islamic governance models don't permit, let alone a secular state. Its symbolic value is high, and practical implications could be severe depending on future rules.

Substantive/Procedural Objections:

1. Easier Government Acquisition: Several clauses seem designed to make it easier for governments to take control of Waqf properties. For instance, in disputes involving the government, the property might effectively fall under government control until resolution, halting its use for the intended Waqf purpose (e.g., locking a dargah or graveyard). Revenue generated during the dispute might also be withheld from Waqf purposes.
2. Exclusion of Protected Monuments: Historical Waqf properties designated as protected monuments under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) might automatically cease to be considered Waqf, effectively transferring them to government control.
3. Shift in Dispute Resolution: Previously, Waqf Tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies) decided disputes about whether a property is Waqf. This power is now shifted to the executive administration – government officials. This creates a massive conflict of interest: the administration, whose government might be claiming the land, now gets to decide the validity of that claim. If the quasi-judicial Tribunals were already ineffective in preventing encroachment, shifting power to the administration seems likely to worsen the situation drastically, potentially paving the way for easier government takeover or transfer to favored private entities.

Debunking the Propaganda: Waqf Boards as Land Grabbers?

Host: There's been persistent propaganda claiming Waqf Boards have excessive power to arbitrarily declare any land as Waqf and seize it. What's the reality?

Maulana Zaidi: This narrative is a prime example of India's alarming fake news industry, often dubbed the "WhatsApp University." It successfully spread fear and misinformation in a short time, creating an image of powerful, perhaps fanatical, Muslims (often stereotyped as Maulanas/Mullahs) sitting on Waqf Boards, capriciously grabbing land, temples, etc., protected by law.

The reality is starkly different:

• Waqf Boards are statutory government bodies.
• Members are appointed or approved by the government. The government can prevent unwanted individuals from joining or remove them. Board members are essentially government functionaries, albeit Muslim until now (which this Act changes).
• Declaring property as Waqf involves a strict procedure: A government-appointed Survey Commissioner conducts surveys and reports. Disputes go to the Waqf Tribunal, another government-established quasi-judicial body.
• State governments have the power to dissolve or suspend Waqf Boards and take direct control of all Waqf properties, and have done so in the past.

So, the entire system is under government oversight. If any "land grabbing" were happening (which it wasn't on the scale alleged), it would be happening under the nose or with the complicity of the state governments, which are often run by parties overtly hostile to Muslim interests.

Furthermore, if Waqf Boards were so powerful, why are Muslims struggling desperately to save existing mosques and shrines from demolition or encroachment across the country – from Sambhal to Varanasi, Mathura, Bhojshala, Junagadh, and even the 600-year-old mosque demolished in Delhi's Mehrauli just last year? How can they supposedly grab anyone's land while being unable to protect their own sacred sites? The narrative is a baseless, successful propaganda campaign designed to mislead the public and demonize Muslims.

Mismanagement vs. Justification

Host: Another argument is that since Muslims themselves mismanaged Waqf properties, selling or neglecting them, it's better for these assets to be taken away from them.

Maulana Zaidi: There's no denying Muslim shortcomings and mismanagement in the past. But does that justify imposing a potentially far worse situation? Let's use another historical analogy. Pre-British India certainly had its problems – conflicts, corruption, inequality. It wasn't a paradise. But does that mean British colonial rule, which was infinitely more exploitative and destructive for India, was a good thing? No sane person would argue that.

Just because the previous situation had flaws doesn't mean we should welcome or accept a solution that could make things ten times worse. While acknowledging past failings by some Muslims regarding Waqf, it provides no justification for embracing an amendment that threatens to exacerbate the problems manifold.

The Real Purpose Behind the Act

Host: If the Act doesn't genuinely benefit Waqf or Muslims, as the discussion suggests, what could be its real underlying purpose?

Maulana Zaidi: Let me turn the question back. What was the urgent crisis solved by the CAA? What pressing national need did the abrogation of Article 370 fulfill? What problem did the controversial Farm Laws (later repealed after massive protests) address? The likely answers to why those laws were brought in, despite questionable benefits and significant opposition, probably apply here too. It suggests motivations beyond stated objectives – perhaps political, ideological, or serving specific interests rather than genuine welfare.

Competing Visions for India's Future

Host: You mentioned political or ideological motives. Could you elaborate? Does this specifically target Muslims?

Maulana Zaidi: I believe there are at least two competing visions for India's future at play.

Vision 1: This is the vision held by most Muslims and, I believe, the majority of Indians. It's a future characterized by justice, equality, knowledge, rationality, ethics, civility, brotherhood, love, reduced poverty, and dignity for every citizen. An ideal, inclusive society.

Vision 2: This vision is held by a smaller, specific section of society, perhaps certain organizations. It's almost the opposite of Vision 1. It envisions a future India marked by widespread ignorance, extreme inequality, social stratification, oppression (especially of women and the weak), cruelty normalized (enjoying both inflicting and watching suffering), subservience to power, superstition, and blind, uncritical nationalism – all while believing they are in a golden age ("Amrit Kaal," "Vishwaguru").

The proponents of Vision 2 need to keep the populace distracted to achieve their goal of domination. They create fake enemies to divert attention from the real harm being done. Muslims are often cast in this role of the fake enemy – targeted, harassed, and blamed – so that the real forces undermining the nation can operate without scrutiny. People remain confused, misled, and unaware of how they themselves are being affected. For adherents of Vision 2, historical models might resemble 1930s Nazi Germany or the current Israeli society supporting genocide – societies mobilized through hatred and devoid of reason and human values.

Host: Why are Muslims specifically chosen as this target, compared to other minorities like Christians or Buddhists?

Maulana Zaidi: That's a crucial question. Firstly, while Muslims are a target, they might be considered an intermediate target (vasila – a means or instrument). Targeting them serves the larger goal of controlling the real target – the vast, oppressed majority of Indians across communities who are vulnerable to the implementation of Vision 2.

However, Muslims are targeted specifically for several reasons:

1. Alternative Ideology: Islam presents a comprehensive, integrated worldview and system of life (spiritual, social, legal, political, economic) that stands as a powerful ideological competitor to Vision 2.
2. Capacity for Resistance: Historically and potentially, Muslims in India have shown a significant capacity not just to resist oppression but also to lead others in resistance. Examples include:
   • 1857 Uprising: British official reports blamed Muslims for leading the revolt, citing their cultural assets and ability to mobilize others. The subsequent reprisals disproportionately targeted Muslims.
   • Khilafat & Non-Cooperation Movement (1920s): The Muslim component was the engine of this powerful movement that shook the British Raj. Gandhi strategically aligned Congress with the existing Muslim momentum.
   • CAA-NRC Protests (Recent): Shaheen Bagh became a symbol, but similar peaceful protests occurred nationwide. This non-violent resistance by ordinary people, especially women, deeply unnerved the proponents of Vision 2.

This capacity for principled, often peaceful, resistance is feared. The recent example of Muslims being issued notices and forced to sign bonds merely for wearing black armbands inside a mosque during Friday prayers (to protest the Waqf Act) shows both the persecution and the fear this regime has of even silent, symbolic dissent from Muslims. They are targeted because their resistance could potentially awaken the larger majority to the dangers they face.

Host: The Shaheen Bagh example is powerful – a symbol of unity transcending sectarian divides (Sunni, Shia, Deobandi, Barelvi, etc.). It showed that peaceful, united action can be an incredibly potent weapon against injustice.

The Future Outlook: Challenges and Opportunities

Host: Given this new Act, what does the future hold for Muslims regarding Waqf?

Maulana Zaidi: The immediate future is uncertain. The outcome of legal challenges in the Supreme Court is unpredictable, though based on recent track record, major judicial intervention seems unlikely. How the law will be implemented on the ground – its scope and intensity – remains to be seen.

The real question for the future is: Will this challenge lead to increased consciousness, awareness, and resolve within the Muslim community? History offers examples where adversity spurred positive change. Israel's invasion of Lebanon led to the rise of a powerful resistance movement. Iran, under severe sanctions, developed self-reliance in many technological fields. Hardship can yield benefits, but crucially, this depends on adopting an appropriate response and resistance.

Host: What constitutes "appropriate resistance"? Should it be merely reactive (opposing the bad), proactive (proposing alternatives), or should Muslims, as a minority, simply accept their fate and endure?

Maulana Zaidi: Excellent question. Resistance can be reactive or proactive. Reactive resistance, like rejecting the CAA/NRC, was necessary and appropriate for that moment. But we also need proactive solutions. We acknowledge the Waqf situation was dire even before this Act. So, simply saying "no" isn't enough.

Do we have a positive alternative vision for Waqf management? I believe we do, and we can draw inspiration from others within India. Look at the Sikh community (around 2% of India's population). Their primary body managing Gurdwaras in Punjab, Himachal, and Chandigarh, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), is largely elected. Who elects them? Not just Gurdwara officials, but ordinary Sikhs in those regions – millions of registered voters participate. This system, despite its own challenges, ensures community involvement and accountability.

Contrast this with the Muslim approach historically: our elite often asked the government (part of the problem) to fix Waqf issues. We need to move towards a model where ordinary Muslims are fully engaged in Waqf management. Perhaps the current crisis can foster the collective will to build such a system – a system tailored to our needs and religious principles, ensuring transparency and community control. The Sikh community achieved their Gurdwara Act in 1925 after a similar movement demanding community control. We pursued a different path then; perhaps it's time to reconsider.

Finding a Way Out: Hope and Action

Host: Muslims in India seem caught in a difficult situation, a sort of quagmire. What is the path to liberation?

Maulana Zaidi: We must look to our own history, our guiding personalities – the Prophet (PBUH) and the Imams (AS). Consider the incident of She'b Abi Talib, the grueling two-year social boycott Muslims endured in Makkah. They faced starvation and hardship but resisted, refusing to compromise their principles. This steadfastness was followed by the success of establishing the community in Madinah.

Our faith teaches resilience. While short-term difficulties are undeniable, the medium and long-term future for Muslims in India is bright, Insha'Allah. We possess invaluable assets: our population, our rich civilization, our capacity for patience and wisdom, our refusal to be emotionally overwhelmed or easily subdued despite immense provocation.

If we remain steadfast, patient, and adhere to our principles, God's promises will manifest. The Quran promises: "If you aid Allah, He will aid you and make your feet firm." (In Tansurullāha Yanṣurkum wa Yuthabbit Aqdāmakum). Aiding Allah means upholding His principles in all spheres of life – personal, social, economic, political. If we do that, His help will come. And "If Allah helps you, none can overcome you." (In Yanṣurkumullāhu Falā Ghāliba Lakum).

Then, we will gain the strength and ability to implement our positive vision for India's future, benefiting not just ourselves but the entire nation, hand-in-hand with our fellow citizens.

Host: So, what concrete steps should be taken?

Maulana Zaidi: Fundamentally, we need to enhance our capabilities in every field. Key areas include:

1. Cultivating Hope and Vision: We must strengthen our positive, inclusive vision for India's future and see it as a source of power. This narrative of hope needs constant reinforcement within our community.
2. Unity: We need greater unity amongst ourselves (transcending sects) and solidarity with all fellow Indians who share the vision of a just and equitable nation. Our struggles are often intertwined with those of other oppressed communities.
3. Awareness: Deeply understanding the current realities and challenges is crucial.
4. Self-Reliant Leadership: The time has come for Muslims to cultivate their own leadership in social and political spheres, moving away from reliance on the patronage of others. We must collaborate as equals with everyone working towards a better India, but not as junior partners or dependents. Bring our own leadership, make our contribution, and build the nation together. This shift in mindset is vital and, thankfully, already beginning.
5. Knowledge and Economic Strength: Pursuing education and economic empowerment is essential, as always emphasized. But crucially, this pursuit must be framed within our larger positive vision for society, not merely for personal gain (jobs, luxury). Knowledge should be 'Ilm-e-Naafe' – beneficial knowledge that serves humanity, the nation, and God's cause.

Host: Thank you, Maulana Sahab, for this comprehensive and insightful discussion. You've stressed unity – both within the Muslim community and with all compatriots sharing common values – and the pursuit of beneficial knowledge ('Ilm-e-Naafe') as key pillars. May this conversation inspire understanding and positive action among all viewers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who approach it with an open mind. Hopefully, we can delve deeper into these issues in future programs. Until then, Khuda Hafiz.

---

Disclaimer: SabeelConnect is not associated/part as of now with Sabeel Podcast.