by Editor | Sep 17, 2025 | Books, English, Entrepreneurship
Maeeshat News Network | Mumbai
Syed Ubaidur Rahman’s History of Waqf in India: Muslim Endowments, Origin and Laws is a monumental contribution to the study of waqf, the Islamic institution of charitable endowments, in the Indian context. Published in a robust 382-page hardbound edition, priced at Rs 895 in India, this book is a comprehensive and meticulously researched exploration of waqf’s theological, historical, and legal evolution over fourteen centuries. Rahman, a distinguished historian and author, delivers a work that is both a scholarly triumph and an accessible resource, appealing to a diverse audience, including students, researchers, legal scholars, policymakers, and general readers interested in India’s socio-religious and legal history.
The book opens with a detailed examination of the theological foundations of waqf in Islamic law, providing a clear and engaging introduction to the principles that underpin Muslim charitable endowments. Rahman explains how waqf, rooted in the Quranic emphasis on charity and community welfare, emerged as a mechanism to dedicate property for religious, educational, or social purposes. This foundational section is particularly valuable for readers unfamiliar with Islamic jurisprudence, as it sets the stage for understanding waqf’s broader historical and legal significance. Rahman’s ability to distill complex theological concepts into accessible prose ensures that both novices and experts can appreciate the subject’s depth.
From its theological origins, the book transitions into a chronological exploration of waqf’s development in India, spanning from the early Islamic period to the modern era. Rahman traces the institution’s growth under various dynasties, including the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire, where waqf properties played a central role in supporting mosques, madrasas, and public welfare initiatives. He also examines the challenges faced by waqf during colonial rule, when British legal frameworks disrupted traditional systems of endowment management. This historical narrative is enriched by Rahman’s attention to the socio-political contexts that shaped waqf’s evolution, offering readers a nuanced understanding of its adaptability and resilience.
A significant strength of the book lies in its interdisciplinary approach, which seamlessly integrates historical analysis with legal scholarship. As Prof. Faizan Mustafa, Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, aptly notes, the book is a “useful addition to the Indian awqaf scholarship” due to its comprehensive coverage of over fourteen hundred years, from waqf’s theological roots to the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This dual focus makes the book an essential resource for students of both history and law. Similarly, Prof. Nandini Chatterjee of Oxford University praises it as a “comprehensive study” that examines waqf from the perspectives of Islamic law, Indian history, and contemporary legal developments, underscoring its relevance to a global academic audience.
The book’s treatment of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is particularly noteworthy, given the legislation’s significance in reshaping the governance of waqf properties in India. Rahman provides a balanced analysis of the Act, detailing its provisions, implications, and the debates surrounding its passage. This section is timely and relevant, as it addresses ongoing discussions about waqf management, transparency, and modernization. By connecting historical precedents with contemporary legal reforms, Rahman ensures that the book is not only a historical account but also a practical guide for understanding current policy challenges.
Rahman’s writing is a standout feature of the book. His prose is clear, engaging, and well-structured, making dense subject matter accessible without sacrificing academic rigor. The book is organized into logically sequenced chapters that guide readers through waqf’s multifaceted history, from its origins to its modern-day implications. Each chapter builds on the previous one, creating a cohesive narrative that is easy to follow yet rich in detail. Rahman’s ability to contextualize complex legal and historical developments ensures that the book appeals to a broad readership, from academic scholars to curious laypersons.
At Rs 895, the hardbound edition is reasonably priced for its depth and scope, making it an excellent investment for libraries, academic institutions, and individual readers. The production quality is commendable, with a sturdy binding and clear typography that enhance the reading experience. However, the book could benefit from a more detailed index or glossary to assist readers unfamiliar with waqf-related terminology, particularly those new to Islamic law or Indian legal history. Additionally, while Rahman’s historical and legal analyses are thorough, the inclusion of more case studies or real-world examples could further illustrate the practical impact of waqf in contemporary India, making the book even more relatable to readers outside academic circles.
One of the book’s most significant achievements is its ability to fill a critical gap in the scholarship on Muslim endowments in India. While waqf has been studied in various contexts, few works offer the comprehensive, interdisciplinary perspective that Rahman provides. His meticulous research, drawing on primary sources, legal texts, and historical records, ensures that the book is both authoritative and insightful. Furthermore, the inclusion of perspectives from both Indian and international scholars, as evidenced by the endorsements from Prof. Mustafa and Prof. Chatterjee, underscores the book’s global relevance.
In conclusion, History of Waqf in India: Muslim Endowments, Origin and Laws is a definitive work that stands as a testament to Syed Ubaidur Rahman’s expertise as a historian and author. It is a scholarly achievement that bridges the gap between history, law, and theology, offering valuable insights into one of India’s most enduring socio-religious institutions. Whether you are a student of history, a legal scholar, a policymaker, or simply someone curious about the role of waqf in shaping Indian society, this book is a must-read. Its comprehensive scope, engaging prose, and timely relevance make it a vital addition to the literature on Indian history and Islamic endowments, destined to inform and inspire readers for years to come.
by Editor | Sep 16, 2025 | Opinion, Opinions, Politics
Maeeshat News Network | Mumbai
This analysis juxtaposes two landmark diplomatic declarations shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, and the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, adopted on July 30, 2025, and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly on September 4, 2025. The Balfour Declaration, a product of British imperial strategy, endorsed a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, setting the stage for enduring conflict. The New York Declaration, born from a global push to end the Gaza war, champions a two-state solution, emphasizing Palestinian statehood and mutual security. This comparison illuminates a century-long evolution from colonial unilateralism to inclusive multilateralism, highlighting both progress and persistent challenges in resolving one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
The Balfour Declaration (1917): A Colonial Pledge
Issued during the tumult of World War I, the Balfour Declaration was a calculated move by the British government to secure Jewish support for the Allied cause, particularly from influential communities in the United States and Russia. With Palestine recently wrested from Ottoman control in 1917, Britain aimed to cement its influence in the Middle East. The declaration, a brief letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Zionist leader Lionel Walter Rothschild, stated:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
This 67-word statement pledged support for a Jewish homeland while offering vague assurances to protect the Arab majority, then 90% of Palestine’s population. Incorporated into the 1920 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, it fuelled Zionist immigration, laying the groundwork for Israel’s establishment in 1948. Critics argue it sidelined Palestinian self-determination, contributing to the Nakba—the 1948 displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians. The declaration’s legacy is a paradox: a catalyst for Jewish statehood and a spark for a century of conflict.
The New York Declaration (2025): A Multilateral Vision
Adopted at a UN conference in New York from July 28–30, 2025, the New York Declaration emerged amid escalating violence in Gaza and the West Bank, with over 40,000 civilian deaths reported since October 2023. Building on UN General Assembly Resolution 79/81 (December 2024), it responded to stalled U.S.-led talks and growing global recognition of Palestinian statehood (over 140 countries by 2025). Co-sponsored by 16 nations, including France, Spain, and Norway, alongside the EU and the League of Arab States, the declaration was overwhelmingly endorsed by the UNGA with 142 votes in September 2025.
Formalized in an annex on August 6, 2025, the declaration outlines a comprehensive framework for peace, with key provisions:
Immediate Ceasefire and Humanitarian Relief: Demands a permanent ceasefire, release of all hostages and Palestinian prisoners, full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza per UN Security Council Resolution 2735, and unhindered humanitarian aid under international humanitarian law (IHL), rejecting starvation as a weapon.
Palestinian Governance: Supports Gaza-West Bank unification under the Palestinian Authority (PA), with a transitional administrative committee to strengthen PA governance. Opposes occupation, siege, or displacement.
Security Framework: Calls for a UN-mandated stabilization mission to protect civilians, enforce the ceasefire, and support a unified Palestinian security apparatus. Hamas must cede control to the PA under a “one state, one government, one law, one gun” policy. Mutual security guarantees ensure safety for both Israel and Palestine, drawing on models like UNIFIL.
Statehood and Peace: Advocates a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital, and comprehensive peace across the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The declaration signals a global consensus on Palestinian self-determination, critiquing ongoing occupation and proposing enforcement mechanisms. Sceptics, particularly U.S. critics, dismiss it as symbolic, but its robust international backing and detailed roadmap offer hope for PA-led reconstruction and border security if implemented.
Comparative Analysis: From Imperial Fiat to Global Consensus
The Balfour and New York Declarations, issued in global hubs—London in 1917, New York in 2025—reflect their eras’ diplomatic paradigms while addressing Palestine’s future. Their similarities and divergences reveal the conflict’s complexity and the world’s evolving response:
Shared Intent, Divergent Contexts: Both declarations emerged during crises—World War I for Balfour, the Gaza war for New York—aiming to shape post-conflict realities. Balfour sought Allied advantage through Zionist support; New York seeks stability through multilateral cooperation, reflecting post-Cold War human rights norms.
Scope and Inclusivity: Balfour’s unilateral pledge favoured Jewish aspirations, marginalizing Palestinian voices. Its vague nod to “non-Jewish communities” lacked enforcement, sowing seeds of conflict. The New York Declaration, by contrast, explicitly champions Palestinian statehood alongside Israeli security, invoking IHL and UN resolutions to balance rights and obligations.
Impact and Legacy: Balfour catalysed Jewish immigration and Israel’s creation but ignored Palestinian self-determination, fuelling the Nakba and decades of strife. The New York Declaration, if enforced, could bridge divides by empowering the PA and ensuring mutual security, though its success depends on overcoming geopolitical resistance, notably from the U.S.
Mechanisms and Enforcement: Balfour relied on British mandate authority, lacking accountability for Arab rights. The New York Declaration proposes concrete mechanisms—a UN stabilization mission, PA-led governance, and international aid—offering a structured path to peace, though implementation remains uncertain.
A Pathway to Peace?
The Balfour Declaration, a relic of imperial ambition, reshaped Palestine with profound consequences, igniting a century of transformation and turmoil. The New York Declaration, rooted in multilateralism and human rights, seeks to rectify historical imbalances by prioritizing a viable two-state solution. Its detailed framework—ceasefire, governance reform, and security guarantees—offers a promising, if fragile, roadmap. As November 2025 approaches, with potential implementation milestones, the world watches to see if this declaration can transcend rhetoric and forge lasting peace. The shift from Balfour’s unilateralism to New York’s inclusivity marks progress, but the path to reconciliation demands unwavering global commitment.
by Editor | Sep 16, 2025 | News, Politics
Chennai, September 16, 2025 – In a strongly worded press statement, Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah, MLA and President of Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), has expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s interim judgment on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, describing it as a verdict that endorses harmful amendments and fails to provide robust constitutional protection. The statement, issued today, highlights critical concerns about the judgment and calls for the complete repeal of the controversial Act.
Criticism of the Interim Judgment
Prof. Jawahirullah criticized the Supreme Court for selectively addressing only a handful of the 115 amendments (33 insertions, 45 substitutions, and 37 deletions) introduced by the Union BJP Government in the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. He argued that the Court’s failure to impose an interim stay on several regressive provisions undermines constitutional principles. “This judgment falls short of providing complete constitutional protection and is deeply disappointing,” he stated.
One of the most contentious rulings, according to Jawahirullah, is the Court’s decision to allow up to four non-Muslims on the 22-member Central Waqf Council and up to three non-Muslims on 11-member State Waqf Boards. Labeling this as discriminatory, he questioned, “If outsiders to Hindu or Sikh faiths cannot serve on their respective boards, why should non-Muslims be mandated on Waqf Boards?” He argued that this provision unfairly singles out Muslim institutions.
Positive Aspects of the Verdict
While critical of the judgment, Jawahirullah acknowledged some positive aspects. The Court has stayed provisions that would allow Waqf properties under dispute to be confiscated or altered in official records until a final judgment is delivered. Additionally, the clause requiring proof of Waqf ownership based solely on a government officer’s report has been suspended, and no officer can unilaterally decide who qualifies to create a Waqf. The Court also stayed the amendment requiring individuals to prove they have followed Islam for at least five years before creating a Waqf, which Jawahirullah welcomed as a temporary relief.
However, he expressed concern over the Court’s decision to leave the definition of a “Muslim” to State Governments, warning that this could empower governments hostile to Muslims to restrict who may create a Waqf, setting a “dangerous precedent.”
Concerns Over “Waqf by User”
A major point of contention in the interim order is the Court’s stance on “Waqf by User,” which Jawahirullah described as “deeply alarming.” He highlighted that centuries-old mosques and graveyards, established through continued usage, now face existential threats due to paragraphs 143–152 of the judgment, which he believes have further complicated the issue.
The Court’s failure to address three critical deletions from the original Waqf Act—Section 104 (allowing non-Muslims to create Waqf), Section 107 (exempting recovery of encroached Waqf properties from the Limitation Act, 1963), and Section 108 (special provisions for evacuee Waqf properties)—was also flagged as a significant oversight. Jawahirullah warned that this omission could enable state governments to seize Waqf properties, particularly in regions with administrations hostile to Muslim interests.
Call for Repeal and Continued Struggle
Labeling the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 as a “deliberate conspiracy to weaken and usurp Waqf properties,” Jawahirullah demanded its complete repeal and the reinstatement of the Waqf Act 2013. He welcomed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s (AIMPLB) resolve to continue the struggle to safeguard Waqf properties, noting their announcement of a massive public meeting at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on November 16, 2025. He urged Muslims in Tamil Nadu to participate in large numbers to strengthen the movement.
Acknowledgment of Allied Efforts
Jawahirullah extended gratitude to the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), DMK, Congress, Samajwadi Party, and other allied parties for their legal efforts against the Amendment Act, including TMMK’s case filed in the Supreme Court. With the final hearing scheduled for November 2025, he urged senior counsels of these parties to highlight the interim verdict’s shortcomings and advocate for the Act’s repeal.
The interim verdict has sparked significant controversy, with Prof. Jawahirullah and MMK leading the charge against what they see as an unconstitutional and discriminatory law. As the legal and public battle intensifies, the call for unity and action among Muslim communities and their allies grows stronger, setting the stage for a pivotal showdown at the final hearing.
by Editor | Sep 14, 2025 | Muslim World, News
Maeeshat News Network | Mumbai
In a brazen display of sensationalism, sections of India’s pro-government media—derisively known as “Godi media”—have amplified vicious rumours claiming that renowned Islamic scholar Dr. Zakir Naik is battling AIDS and has been hospitalized in Malaysia. The claims, which originated on social media and were quickly picked up by channels like News18, allege not only Dr. Naik’s illness but also that his wife, Farhat Naik, and daughter, Zikra Naik, have tested HIV-positive. However, official statements from Dr. Naik’s team and independent verifications paint a starkly different picture: the preacher is in excellent health and actively engaged in his work.
Dr. Naik’s official X account (@drzakiranaik) posted as recently as September 13, 2025, announcing the launch of a new OTT platform for Peace TV and Al Hidayah, with no mention of any health concerns. His lawyer has categorically dismissed the rumors as “fake news” and “rubbish,” confirming that Dr. Naik is abroad and in good health. Independent outlets like OneIndia and DXB News Network echoed this, labelling the story a “social media rumour” with zero credible evidence, noting that Dr. Naik’s routine posts continue uninterrupted.
The viral “medical report” circulating online—purportedly from Sunway Medical Centre—has been debunked as fabricated. Fact-checkers point out discrepancies, such as mismatched age details (listing Dr. Naik as 65 when he is 59), and no hospital has corroborated the document. Malaysian media, including Free Malaysia Today and Malaysiakini, have reported the denials, emphasizing the lack of substantiation. Social media sleuths on X (formerly Twitter) have also flagged the image as a doctored Photoshop job, with users mocking the “ecosystem’s” desperate bid for clicks.
This isn’t the first time Dr. Naik, a polarizing figure banned in India for alleged hate speech, has been targeted by disinformation campaigns. But the timing raises eyebrows. As India grapples with escalating crises—Manipur’s ethnic violence entering its third year with fresh protests against PM Modi’s delayed visit, soaring unemployment at 8.5% (per latest NSSO data), and whispers of electoral bond scandals resurfacing—these smears conveniently dominate headlines. Critics argue it’s a classic diversion tactic: flood the discourse with Islamophobic tropes to stoke communal tensions and eclipse governance failures.
“These rumours are not just false; they’re malicious attempts to demonize a voice that challenges the status quo,” said a spokesperson for the Islamic Research Foundation, which Dr. Naik founded. “While we’re focused on dawah (invitation to faith) and global outreach, others seem obsessed with character assassination.” On X, supporters have rallied with hashtags like #ZakirNaikHealthy, countering the troll army with calls for media accountability.
Godi media’s role is unmistakable. A September 12 YouTube video from News18 titled “Controversial Preacher Zakir Naik Hospitalised” racked up views by leaning into unverified “sources,” while BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya amplified a related clip on X, declaring the claims “TRUE” without evidence. Right-wing handles, from @HinduExistence to @MumbaichaDon, piled on with glee, sharing memes about “karma” and “Jannat entry denied.” Yet, as one X user quipped, “If rumours were true, half of Twitter would be in ICU by now.”
In an era of deepfakes and echo chambers, this episode underscores the peril of unchecked “breaking news.” Dr. Naik remains a lightning rod—admired by millions for his interfaith dialogues, reviled by detractors for his unapologetic orthodoxy. But health smears? That’s a low even for the rumor mongers. As India hurtles toward 2026 state polls, perhaps it’s time for real journalism to refocus: on healing divides, not inventing them.
by Editor | Sep 14, 2025 | News
New Delhi: The University of Delhi awarded Taha Yasin with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) on the 12th of September, 2025.
The panel of experts appreciated the thematic breadth and originality of the ambitious and intellectually rich investigation of the contradictions within Indian democracy in the thesis titled: ‘Reclaiming Democracy: Looking into Literature of Independent India’, and urged for its immediate publication as a monograph.
Dr Taha Yasin completed his 10+2 from Bishop Westcott Boys’ School, Namkum. After graduating with English (Hons) from St. Xavier’s College, Ranchi, he completed his Master’s, M.Phil. and LLB from the University of Delhi. Moreover, after clearing NET in the first attempt, he has been teaching in the Department of English, Ram Lal Anand College, DU, since January 2013. As an active participant of Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) and it’s executive member in 2019-2021, he has been raising voices for representation, reservation and upliftment of Adivasi, Dalit, Minorities and other marginalised sections of the society. Possessing both vision and ideology, he has not only left mark with impactful presentations in international conferences, but has also been published in reputed national and international journals. Dr Yasin belongs to the honourable “Haji family” of the historical and academically renowned village – Sons, district Ranchi. He is a permanent resident of Ranchi city now.
In this context, it would be pertinent to argue that Dr Taha Yasin represents the bright academic and political future of the state of Jharkhand.
