Muslim scholar Mohammad Faiz Khan explained how and who is misleading the Muslim community regarding the Waqf Board Amendment Bill. Who is actually benefiting from it? You should also have complete information about the Waqf Amendment Bill!

Waqf bill? More like Woke bill, amirite?

It's not retrospective? WTF! Then what about all the lands of Hindus and Christians and temples they already usurped? Has BJP legalised their plunder?

This is not the WAQF AMENDMENT BILL, HINDUS WANTED!

Such bootlicking murtad people are available in market at the cost of few hundred rupees only

Mohammad Faiz Khan is associated with the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), an organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which is ideologically aligned with the BJP. Malviya, y r u ashamed to show ur association with this thugs of BJP? Will it embarrass u?

He is BJ Party Dalla

Why dont you make a massive circulation of his video for the muslim community to see n hear and understand how they r being taken for a ride.

How Atiku Abubakar, a Muslim, using a Christian young lady almost to death, used her family, her cousins, used their bodies, blood and her babies, and he will not give the girl one kobo, will not claim the girl, will not marry her because she is Christian

( @amitmalviya ): While Mohammad Faiz Khan’s perspective on the Waqf Amendment Bill is noteworthy, there are several concerning aspects of this narrative and the bill itself that warrant scrutiny. First, the claim that the bill addresses "misleading" elements within the Muslim community lacks substantiation in your post. Without clear evidence or specific examples of who is misleading whom and how, this statement risks being perceived as vague and potentially divisive, fueling mistrust rather than fostering understanding. The Waqf Amendment Bill, as passed, removes Section 40, which previously allowed properties to be declared as Waqf. However, this change raises significant risks. Historical Waqf properties, many of which lack formal documentation due to their centuries-old origins (as noted in web ID: 4 from the BBC), could now face legal challenges or reclassification. This could lead to the loss of community assets like mosques, madrassas, and graveyards, which are often managed under the "waqf by user" provision that the bill eliminates. The absence of a clear mechanism to protect these undocumented properties might result in widespread disputes or encroachments—issues already plaguing 58,889 Waqf properties, with 13,000 in litigation (web ID: 4). How will the government ensure that this doesn’t exacerbate existing problems rather than resolve them? Moreover, the bill’s provision to include non-Muslims in Waqf councils (web ID: 1, Hindustan Times) and the removal of the requirement for Muslim law experts in Tribunals (web ID: 2, PRS India) could undermine the religious and cultural autonomy of Waqf management. Waqf properties are inherently tied to Islamic tradition, as they are considered dedicated to Allah for community benefit (trend ID: 2, @luckyali ). Allowing non-Muslims to have administrative roles, even if not in religious affairs, risks creating perceptions of interference, which could alienate the Muslim community further. The opposition’s concern, voiced by Rahul Gandhi (trend ID: 0), that this sets a precedent for targeting other communities in the future, cannot be dismissed lightly. What safeguards are in place to prevent this bill from being weaponized against minority rights, as critics fear? Additionally, the timing and framing of this bill are problematic. Passing such a contentious piece of legislation at midnight (trend ID: 9, @TimesAlgebraIND ) with a sharply divided vote (288-232) suggests a lack of consensus and raises questions about transparency in the legislative process. The opposition’s allegations that their dissent was ignored in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (web ID: 0, BBC) further erode trust in the bill’s intent. If the goal is truly transparency and reform, why does the process itself appear opaque and rushed? Finally, the narrative of "who is actually benefiting" from the bill, as Khan suggests, needs deeper examination. The government claims it’s addressing corruption (web ID: 1, Hindustan Times), but without concrete data on how Waqf boards have misused funds or properties, this justification feels speculative. Conversely, the bill’s removal of government properties from Waqf classification could disproportionately benefit state or private entities, potentially at the expense of the Muslim community’s charitable assets. This could perpetuate the very elite control the government claims to oppose (web ID: 4, BBC), rather than empowering the broader community. In summary, while the intent behind the Waqf Amendment Bill may be to bring transparency, the lack of clarity on its implementation, the potential for cultural erosion, and the risk of alienating a significant community highlight serious flaws. These issues could lead to more division, legal battles, and loss of trust in governance, rather than the unity and reform the bill purports to achieve.

No one even knows the people you are calling Muslim scholars.

@asadowaisi Hey Owaisi, any comments please? Afraid that your income and loot is gonna stop now? Get well soon...