It’s become an idiotic and uninhabitable fashion for the Islamophobes to bash Islam under the garb of “modernism and innovativeness”. The appeal is often more attractive and alluring under the guise of pseudonyms of all sorts. Ibn Khaldun Bharati is one such pseudonym that seems to be gaining a lot of traction these days. Claiming to be “a student of Islam, and looking at Islamic history from an Indian perspective,” Ibn K Bharati used to take pride in bashing Muslim Indians some time back but has now grown the teeth to decry the endowments and attributes of Islam under this outmoded Islamophobic fashion. His latest article on Waqf in Shekhar Gupta's ThePrint – claiming that Waqf is anti-Quran – is a testament to his contaminated knowledge of Quran and Islam. However, going by his transcribed grandeurs in the past, I can say that he could have done better than defining Waqf through the verdict of a “drunk mullah”!

How Islamic is Waqf?

The defective and confounded logic of Ibn K Bharati is evident when he states that “Imam Abu Hanifa … the predominant school of Islamic jurisprudence in India, completely disapproved of Waqf.” Probably this student of “Islam and Islamic history” should do well to revisit some of the basics of Islam and inductive Islamic history, rather than deducing a global attribute of Islamic history to an Indian perspective. It would do well for him to first realise that Imam Abu Hanifa was one of the Tabi‘un – that is, the generation just after the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him); and inductively, Imam Abu Hanifa’s inferences on any attribute of Islam are not superior and greater than those of the Companions themselves. Even if we say for argument’s sake that Imam Abu Hanifa “completely disapproved of Waqf,” there is cogent and persuasive evidence from Islamic history that the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself, and his Companions endorsed Waqf. Therefore, just for argument’s sake and by inductive logic, Imam Abu Hanifa’s inference of Waqf does not stand ground against that of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions. The Hanafih fiqh, being the predominant school of Islamic jurisprudence in India, does not make Imam Abu Hanfia’s stature greater than the Prophet (peace be upon him) or his Companions.

Evidently this student of “Islam and Islamic history” didn’t pay much attention to the Islamic history, else it would have been evident to him that the first validation of Waqf was not during Muslim rule of India or the Ottomans; rather it was during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. Or perhaps he has never heard of the “Romah Well” and the other awqaf (plural of waqf) of Uthman bin Affan RA – what a pity?! The retarded logic of this student of Islamic history is further evident when he self-contradicts himself – “We have seen that during the age of the Prophet and the Rashidun Caliphs, Waqf was created and maintained by the State.” Well, by what logic can he still claim Waqf to be anti-Quran if it was created and maintained during the age of the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself?

Waqf and Inherent Corruption – Self Contradictions?

In his jest to demonize the entirety of Waqf, Ibn K Bharati has further makes another self-contradiction by writing that “The moot question is whether this donation became public property under the supervision of the emerging State, or if it remained under private management, which would jealously guard it against the State’s regulation. The question arises because, throughout Islamic history, Waqf has been an instrument of interdiction against the State’s intervention in private property.”

Let me quote Mehak Ahuja, an advocate practicing at the Supreme Court, who states in her article titled “How Women Misuse Their Rights” that “The most prominent example of sexism can be Rape. According to the Indian penal code, rape is a non bailable offence and is gender specific. Which means a man or a boy can be arrested if a girl files a case of rape against him, without even investigating the matter of truth.” Mehak Ahuja further states in her article that “There are instances when the law is abused to harass or even victimize individuals … More than 66% of respondents to a recent survey say laws for protection of women are being misused”.

I cited this article to bring about the fact that any law or provision has the potential to be misused; however, the law or provision itself cannot be deemed unparliamentary. Or going by Ibn Bharati’s dilapidated and pungent logic, does that mean the Indian Penal Code is anti-Indian; or inherently corrupt? On the contrary, vested interests with inherent corruption mandates will find a way to make the whole world corrupt in any way possible – and that’s how the Quran defines them in the Verses quoted at the beginning of this article!

I will be objective to respect Ibn K Bharati’s assertion that “secular parties might have tried to keep their vote bank content with a perfunctory and frivolous criticism for pointing out the anti-Muslimness of the proposed amendments.” Unfortunately, his assertion that Waqf management in India has been “a den of corruption and mismanagement” is precariously true. It also appears that this might be one of the reasons to advocate the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Perhaps Ibn Bharati could have been more objective and tried to reason the changes advocated in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 that would help seed out the “inherent corruption in Waqf.” At least this amount of effort by him would have offset his skewed and festered logic of branding the Sachar Committee report of 2006 as the “Bible of the Muslim victimhood.”

Is Waqf a Charity?

Ibn K Bharati says, “The Islamic words for charity are Zakat, Sadaqat, and Khairat. Zakat and Khairat are often spoken in conjunction. Waqf is not a term for charity.” Before commenting on this, let me share the story behind the recently opened Hotel ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan' in Madinah.

We all know the story of how Uthman bin Affan (RA — May God be pleased with him) purchased a well from its Jewish owner and apportioned it as endowment in Allah’s name (waqf lillah) for all Muslims to drink from it for free. Years later, the land surrounding the well was adorned by date-palms, which were commercially managed and maintained by the rulers of the region, ranging from the Ottomans to the current Government of Saudi Arabia. The dates from the date-palms were sold by the Government in markets, and the earnings were divide into two: one half for orphans and the poor, the other half deposited in a special bank account in ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan’s name. The amount accumulated in this special bank account has been used to purchase land and build a hotel near the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah. It is estimated that the hotel will generate 50 million riyals per annum, half of which will be distributed to orphans.

The above example reinforces the claim that Waqf, if administered judiciously, “is the most sustainable, enduring, and empowering of all voluntary Islamic charities”. The best term to equate sustainable charity in Arabic is “Sadaqah jariyah;” and Sadaqah itself has been cited multiple times in the Quran. This leaves no room for any further deliberation that Waqf and Sadaqah (or charity) are closely concomitant.

It is one thing to argue, as Ibn K Bharati did, that "if Waqf is permanent, so is its corruption," and another thing to denounce a benevolent practice based on the Quran as contrary to the Quran. This is yet another baseless malicious attack on Muslims and Islam.

Khaldun derives from the Arabic root "khalada," which means to last forever, to be immortal. It then fails my humble acumen how a “student of Islam” can call himself Ibn Khaldun – son of the immortal – when Islam categorically declares that the only Entity that is immortal is God, and that God begets no son. It is not an exaggeration to say that "Ibn Khaldun" may be anti-Quranic, but Waqf is definitely not.

*Rushd means on the right path; a person walking the right path.