The Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board’s proposal to introduce common themes for Friday sermons across mosques, shrines and religious institutions in the Union Territory has been shelved following objections from political leaders and religious organisations.
The Board said the idea was to promote religious awareness and social harmony and address issues such as drug abuse. Instead, it triggered a wider debate over religious autonomy, the authority of Imams and the role of a statutory body in matters of faith.
At the heart of the controversy was a fundamental question: can an administrative institution influence what is preached from the mosque pulpit, even if the stated objective is to address social concerns?
The episode also highlighted the distinction between religious scholars voluntarily coordinating sermons and an initiative perceived to have the backing of a government-appointed body.
What is the Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board and how did it come into existence?
The Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board is a statutory institution responsible for the management, regulation, protection and development of Waqf properties across the Union Territory.
The institution earlier known as "Idara Auqaf Islamia" was formed in 1940. On August 31, 1973, it was resolved that the Idara Auqaf-i-Islamia be transformed into a trust called the "All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Auqaf Trust". The Trust remained under the influence of the National Conference until 2002, when then Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed dissolved it and replaced it with a state-controlled body, the Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board, in September 2003.
Following the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A and the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, the legal and administrative framework governing Waqf was brought in line with the applicable national framework.
Who heads the Waqf Board and what is its reach?
Senior BJP leader Dr Syed Darakhshan Andrabi was elected unanimously as chairperson on March 16, 2022, under the Central Waqf Act, 1995. She became the first woman and the first BJP leader to head the institution.
The Board administers over 200 mosques and shrines across Jammu and Kashmir, including 68 shrines and 80 mosques in the Valley. Thousands of others function under local committees and community-based management arrangements.
What exactly was the proposal that triggered the controversy?
At a meeting on October 10, attended by Muftis, Imams and Islamic scholars representing different schools of thought and sects, Andrabi verbally proposed forming a core committee of Muftis, Imams and Khateebs to identify and finalise common themes for weekly Friday congregational prayers.
The proposed sermons were to focus on religious awareness, moral values, social harmony, unity and issues of public and community interest in accordance with Islamic teachings. The committee was expected to finalise topics in advance and communicate them to the concerned religious scholars for implementation. Religious leaders from the Jammu region participated through video conferencing.
Andrabi maintained that the initiative had emerged from discussions among religious scholars and that the Board would have no role in deciding sermon content.
Why was the proposal considered contentious if its stated objectives were social welfare and religious awareness?
The controversy was not primarily about the proposed subjects but about who would decide them and under whose authority.
Friday sermons, or khutbahs, are an important part of congregational worship and religious guidance. Imams address matters of faith, morality, community welfare and contemporary affairs, with the subject traditionally decided by the Imam or religious scholar in light of the congregation's circumstances and local concerns. Sermons may also address political developments and issues affecting Muslims across the world.
Critics feared that a committee finalising sermon themes in advance could gradually limit the independence of Imams and turn religious guidance into an administratively influenced exercise.
Why does the issue carry particular significance in Jammu and Kashmir?
Mosques and shrines have historically served not only as places of worship but also as important centres of community mobilisation and political expression in Jammu and Kashmir.
From the 1931 uprising against Dogra rule to the outbreak of militancy in 1989, religious spaces played a significant role in bringing people together and shaping political movements.
Against this historical backdrop, any attempt to influence what is preached from the pulpit is likely to attract scrutiny. Critics viewed the proposal as potentially narrowing the traditional role of religious institutions and curtailing the authority of Imams and religious scholars to address issues they consider important.
Who opposed the proposal and what were their objections?
The proposal drew criticism from Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president and former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, Peoples Conference chairman and MLA Sajjad Lone, and AIP leader Er Rashid.
Omar Abdullah described it as an unacceptable attempt by the BJP to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims and demanded that the Board's chairperson halt the initiative.
Mehbooba Mufti argued that Friday sermons should reflect the circumstances and challenges confronting individual communities rather than follow a uniform template determined by an administrative body. She also demanded that the Waqf administration be handed over to an elected government instead of being used to regulate religious expression.
Sajjad Lone termed the proposed pre-vetting of sermons by a Waqf Board committee direct interference in religious freedom and the autonomy of the pulpit.
The criticism, shared by political leaders across parties other than the BJP, centred on the principle that an Imam should not be required to deliver an administratively approved message.
What was the objection raised by religious organisations and scholars?
The Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), a coalition of religious organisations led by cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, strongly opposed the proposal.
It maintained that the mosque pulpit, or Mimbar, was a religious trust and that determining religious guidance was the domain of Ulema, Imams and recognised religious institutions, rooted in Islamic scholarship and the traditions of different schools of thought.
The MMU distinguished between religious scholars voluntarily coming together to address common social and religious concerns and a state-linked administrative body prescribing sermon themes or directions. It urged the Waqf Board to confine itself to the administration, maintenance and protection of Waqf properties rather than venture into religious discourse.
Two clerics from Jammu who participated in the October 10 meeting virtually also said several participants had objected to standardising sermons through administrative directives. They alleged that their objections were disregarded, that they were not allowed to speak further and that the chairperson indicated the decision had already been taken and would be implemented.
How did Andrabi respond to the criticism?
Andrabi maintained that no formal order had been issued making uniform Friday sermons compulsory.
She said religious scholars, preachers and sermon-givers would retain the freedom to select their subjects and decide how to present them. According to her, the initiative had emerged from discussions among scholars on addressing social problems and was not intended to restrict religious expression.
Questioning the criticism, she argued that efforts to raise awareness about drug abuse, suicide and other social challenges should not be politicised.
Her clarification that no mandatory order had been issued appeared to bring the immediate controversy to a close.
Did religious scholars subsequently take up the idea of coordinated Friday sermons?
Yes. On October 16, five days after the Waqf Board meeting, the MMU launched a coordinated Friday sermon initiative across Kashmir, parts of Jammu and Ladakh.
According to the MMU, more than 70 major Friday congregations participated in the first programme, which focused on Imaan (faith).
The initiative covered all 10 districts of the Kashmir Valley, besides Jammu, Rajouri, Poonch, and Udhampur; the Chenab Valley districts of Doda, Kishtwar, and Ramban; and Kargil, Drass, and Leh in Ladakh.
The MMU said Ulema, Imams and Khateebs belonging to different sects had voluntarily come together to convey a common message while preserving the independence and sanctity of individual pulpits.
What issues will the MMU's coordinated sermons address?
The MMU said the initiative would continue on designated Fridays, with sermons addressing unity of the Ummah, drug abuse, suicide and mental-health concerns, challenges facing young people, responsible use of social media, family values and environmental protection.
What is the larger issue emerging from the controversy?
The episode has brought into focus the distinction between the administrative responsibilities of the Waqf Board and the religious authority traditionally exercised by Imams and Ulema.
There is little dispute over the need to address social problems through religious institutions. The disagreement arose over the mechanism proposed to do so and the possibility of administrative influence over religious discourse.
The MMU's subsequent initiative illustrates an alternative approach: voluntary coordination among religious scholars, with individual Imams retaining the freedom to shape their sermons.
Ultimately, the controversy was less about the need to discuss social concerns than about who has the authority to decide what should be preached from the pulpit.