Board chairperson Darakhshan Andrabi said no directive had been issued requiring preachers to deliver identical sermons. She maintained that imams and religious scholars remained free to select subjects, while defending discussions about coordinating messages on social problems.
The clarification followed criticism on Tuesday from Abdullah, Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti and the Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), an umbrella organisation headed by Kashmir’s chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. They questioned whether an administrative institution should influence what religious leaders say during congregational prayers.
The controversy began after the board proposed constituting a core committee of muftis, imams and khateebs to identify common topics for Friday sermons at institutions under its administration. The stated objectives included religious awareness, moral values, social harmony, unity and public welfare.
Andrabi, a senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader, said the initiative emerged from discussions among religious scholars rather than a political instruction. She pointed to concerns including drug addiction and suicide as subjects on which religious leaders could encourage community awareness.
Her assurance that no binding order existed marked an important distinction between coordinating voluntary discussions and imposing standardised preaching. However, opponents continued to seek clarity about the board’s intended role and the authority of any committee established under the proposal.
Abdullah described the plan as an unacceptable attempt by the BJP to interfere in Muslim religious affairs. He demanded that the board’s chairperson halt the initiative, arguing that religious instruction should not be determined by political authorities.
The chief minister’s objections were echoed by Mufti, who said Friday sermons must respond to the circumstances of individual neighbourhoods and communities. She argued that religious scholars, rather than administrators, were qualified to decide which issues deserved attention during prayers.
Mufti also called for Waqf administration to be placed under the elected Jammu and Kashmir government. She accused the BJP of using the board to influence religious practice, an allegation that Andrabi’s explanation disputed.
The MMU rejected the prospect of prescribed sermon content, saying the mosque pulpit represented a religious trust and that guidance belonged to qualified scholars, imams and recognised institutions representing different schools of Islamic thought.
The organisation distinguished voluntary cooperation among scholars on shared social concerns from instructions issued by an administrative body. It said government-linked authorities should not determine religious discourse or require preachers to follow scripted messages.
The MMU urged the Waqf Board to concentrate on managing, maintaining and protecting properties entrusted to it. Its statement raised broader questions about whether the proposed committee would offer optional guidance or exercise authority over sermons.
Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s involvement gave the objections a prominent religious voice alongside the political opposition. The disagreement centres on the boundaries between oversight of religious endowments and the independence of clergy responsible for worship and instruction.
People’s Conference leader Sajad Lone also opposed interference with mosque sermons, while National Conference figures challenged the idea of centrally selected themes. Former Srinagar mayor Junaid Mattu questioned the implications for constitutional protections of religious freedom.
The board’s proposal concerned institutions affiliated with it, rather than an established requirement covering every mosque in Jammu and Kashmir. That distinction matters because independent mosques and religious organisations do not necessarily fall under the same administrative arrangements.
Friday sermons, commonly called khutbas, are delivered during congregational prayers and can address religious obligations alongside social and community matters. Critics of uniform themes contend that local clerics need discretion to respond to conditions affecting their congregations.
The board has maintained that its suggested subjects were intended to encourage constructive discussion rather than restrict religious expression. Andrabi’s denial of a compulsory directive leaves the proposed committee’s precise procedures and any resulting recommendations to be clarified.
No timetable for implementing common themes has been established in the statements examined, and the board has not identified a compulsory sermon text. The immediate disagreement therefore concerns the proposed mechanism for selecting topics and whether clerics would retain full discretion. The board’s assurances have not resolved those concerns among religious organisations.
The disputed initiative included Jamia mosques, shrines and other affiliated religious institutions, with the proposed committee drawing members from among muftis, imams and khateebs.
