By: Basharat Hijazi
The debate surrounding the possibility of common themes for Friday sermons in Kashmir has opened up a sensitive conversation about religion, religious autonomy and the role of institutions in addressing social problems. In a society where mosques occupy an important place in spiritual and community life, even a discussion about coordinating sermon topics can generate strong reactions. For some, it represents an opportunity to bring religious leadership together against growing social challenges. For others, it raises legitimate questions about who should determine the content of religious discourse and whether institutional coordination could eventually become a form of control.
Both concerns deserve to be understood calmly and on their merits. The issue requires neither exaggerated apprehension nor unquestioning acceptance. What is needed is a clear distinction between encouraging religious scholars to address common social concerns and requiring them to deliver a prescribed message. These are fundamentally different propositions, and much of the confusion surrounding the debate appears to arise from the failure to distinguish between them.
The discussion also offers an opportunity to examine how religious institutions, scholars and public authorities can cooperate on matters affecting society while respecting the boundaries of their respective responsibilities. Rather than allowing the controversy to become a contest between competing narratives, the focus should remain on the facts, the principles involved and the practical consequences of any proposed initiative.
The distinction between a common concern and a common script
The Friday sermon, or khutbah, is an important part of Muslim religious life. It provides an opportunity for religious scholars to explain Islamic teachings, guide congregations and reflect on moral, spiritual and social questions. In Kashmir, as elsewhere, the subjects discussed by imams may range from religious obligations and ethical conduct to family relationships, education, public responsibilities and the challenges confronting young people.
Against this background, the suggestion that scholars could collectively focus on a particular social concern is not, in itself, equivalent to imposing a uniform sermon. If several mosques choose to address drug abuse, for instance, their imams may approach the subject through different Quranic teachings, moral arguments, examples and forms of guidance. A shared concern does not necessarily require identical language, interpretation or presentation.
The position changes, however, if a common theme becomes a compulsory script, if religious scholars are instructed to read material prepared by an outside authority, or if their freedom to select and explain religious matters is restricted. Such a development would raise a different set of questions about religious independence, institutional authority and the relationship between religious scholarship and administrative bodies.
It is therefore essential to establish precisely what has been proposed, what has been formally decided and what, if anything, is compulsory. A discussion about common themes should not automatically be described as government control. Equally, assurances about the voluntary nature of an initiative should be accompanied by sufficient clarity about its proposed structure and implementation.
The expression “common Friday sermons” can itself create confusion because it may suggest that every mosque would be required to deliver the same text. A more precise distinction is needed between a common subject and a common script. If the objective is to encourage awareness about a pressing social problem, there is no inherent reason for every scholar to employ identical wording or follow a centrally prepared text.
What the clerics have clarified
Maulana Abdul Rashid Dawoodi has rejected claims that the government was pressuring religious scholars to deliver government-written Friday sermons or that the Waqf Board had prepared a sermon to be read verbatim in mosques. Explaining the meeting he attended in his capacity as khateeb of Kaaba Marak, he said the discussion centred on growing social evils and the possibility of scholars speaking with a stronger collective voice on issues affecting society.
His argument rests on the distinction between coordination and compulsion. If scholars in different mosques address a shared problem, he suggested, their collective effort could help strengthen public awareness. The individual scholar could explain the issue in his own manner rather than simply reproduce a centrally prepared text.
Dawoodi also indicated that he would not misrepresent the facts and that his accountability was ultimately to Allah. His clarification is significant because it addresses one of the principal fears surrounding the controversy: that religious scholars might be expected to surrender their independent judgement to an administrative or political authority.
A similar position has been expressed by Maulana Raiyaz Ul Haq Noorqanadi, Imam and Khateeb of the Hazratbal Dargah. He stated that there was no government circular or agenda behind the meeting and maintained that scholars themselves were responsible for deciding the subjects of their Friday sermons. According to his position, religious leaders could consult one another and consider the prevailing circumstances and social problems while retaining responsibility for their own sermons.
Noorqanadi also appealed to political leaders to avoid interference in religious matters. His statement reinforces the principle that any effort to address social concerns through mosques must respect the judgement and independence of religious scholars.
These clarifications deserve serious consideration. They provide an important counterweight to the assumption that the discussion necessarily involves the imposition of government-drafted sermons. At the same time, the broader debate cannot be settled by statements alone; the precise nature of any proposed committee, its authority and the voluntary or compulsory character of its recommendations must remain clear.
It is important, therefore, to consider what the clerics have actually said rather than allowing the controversy to be shaped exclusively by speculation. Their statements indicate that the meeting was presented as an opportunity to discuss social problems and encourage collective awareness, not as an exercise in prescribing the words that every imam must deliver from the pulpit.
Darakhshan Andrabi and the question of institutional authority
Waqf Board chairperson Darakhshan Andrabi has also clarified that no compulsory directive requiring uniform Friday sermons has been issued. Her stated position is that religious scholars would retain the authority to decide what they preach and that the initiative should not be understood as an attempt by the government or the Board to dictate religious discourse.
Her clarification is important, particularly because the controversy centres partly on the role of the Waqf Board. An institution responsible for administering religious endowments and associated properties inevitably operates at the intersection of religious life and public administration. Questions about the extent of its authority, therefore, deserve transparent answers.
Andrabi has also referred to the need to address social problems, including drug abuse and other difficulties affecting families and young people. These are serious concerns that no responsible institution can afford to ignore. Yet the legitimacy of an objective and the appropriateness of the means adopted to achieve it are separate questions.
An initiative intended to encourage awareness may have considerable merit if it is developed through consultation with scholars and remains voluntary. Its credibility could be weakened, however, if the process appears opaque or if religious leaders are left uncertain about who would select the topics, prepare any suggested material and determine whether participation is optional.
The most constructive response is not to assume the worst about the initiative, nor to dismiss every question raised about it. It is to ensure that the arrangements, responsibilities and safeguards are explained in a manner that leaves little room for misunderstanding.
The Board can help resolve uncertainty by making a clear distinction between any proposal to identify common themes and an instruction requiring uniform sermons. If the arrangement is advisory, that should be stated explicitly. If scholars are expected to participate voluntarily, the terms of participation should be equally clear. Transparency on these points would help prevent a potentially useful social initiative from becoming a source of unnecessary mistrust.
Why political objections should also be understood
The concerns expressed by political leaders, including former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, have brought the issue into a wider public debate. Their objections have focused on religious autonomy and the possibility of administrative interference in the affairs of Muslim religious institutions. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and the Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema have also raised concerns about preserving the independence of religious leadership.
Such objections should not automatically be dismissed as attempts to create fear. In matters involving religion, public institutions and community life, the possibility of institutional overreach is a legitimate subject for scrutiny. Religious scholars must be free to interpret and explain religious teachings according to their knowledge and judgement, without being placed under political pressure.
However, a concern about what an institution might do should not be confused with proof that the feared action has already taken place. There is a meaningful difference between questioning a proposed mechanism, warning against possible interference and establishing that compulsory government-written sermons have been ordered.
A fair assessment must preserve that distinction. Political leaders are entitled to demand safeguards for religious autonomy, while the public is equally entitled to expect that their statements accurately reflect the available facts. Where clarifications have been issued by the clerics involved and the Waqf Board chairperson, those clarifications should form part of the public discussion rather than being overlooked.
The debate would benefit from moving away from assumptions about motives and towards specific questions. Is there a formal order? What powers would any proposed committee exercise? Would it merely suggest subjects for discussion, or would it prescribe the content of sermons? Who would participate in the process? Would scholars remain entirely free to accept, adapt or decline the suggestions?
These are reasonable questions that can be answered through transparent communication. Their importance lies not in suggesting that interference has already occurred, but in ensuring that any initiative affecting religious discourse is understood and evaluated against clear principles.
The social challenges that cannot be ignored
While the debate over institutional authority is important, it should not eclipse the serious social concerns that prompted the discussion in the first place.
Drug abuse has emerged as a major challenge for families and communities in Kashmir. Its consequences extend beyond the individual to parents, siblings, spouses and children. Families frequently face emotional distress, social stigma and uncertainty about where to seek help. Addressing the problem requires more than condemnation: it calls for prevention, counselling, accessible treatment, community support and sustained efforts to help affected individuals rebuild their lives.
Other concerns also demand attention. Family conflict, financial pressure, educational difficulties, unemployment, social isolation and mental distress can place enormous burdens on individuals and households. Suicides and reports of emotional crises among young people underline the need for compassionate intervention and effective mental health support. Religious institutions cannot replace qualified health professionals or public services, but they can help create an environment in which people are encouraged to seek assistance rather than suffer in silence.
Mosques and religious scholars can play a constructive role in this effort. Their influence can help challenge harmful behaviour, promote compassion, discourage exploitation and encourage families to support those experiencing difficulties. Religious guidance can also reinforce the importance of education, responsible conduct, mutual respect and care for vulnerable members of society.
A coordinated effort could make such messages more visible. If scholars voluntarily agree to highlight a particular issue on the same Friday, the subject may receive broader public attention. Yet the impact of a sermon depends not on uniformity alone but on the credibility of the speaker, the relevance of the message and the practical guidance offered to the congregation.
An imam discussing drug abuse, for example, can explain the moral and social consequences while encouraging families to seek professional treatment and urging communities to reject stigma. Another scholar may approach the same issue through family responsibility, compassion or the protection of young people. Different approaches can strengthen a shared objective rather than weaken it.
The purpose of religious engagement should be to help people confront their difficulties, not merely to generate public statements about them. A sermon can start a conversation, encourage a family to seek help or prompt a community to support someone in distress. These outcomes may be difficult to measure, but they can be meaningful when religious guidance is accompanied by practical assistance and a sustained commitment to social welfare.
Religious independence and collective responsibility can coexist
One of the most important lessons from this controversy is that religious autonomy and collective social responsibility need not be competing objectives.
Religious scholars have the knowledge, standing and experience to identify issues that require greater attention. They can consult one another, share experiences and agree voluntarily to highlight common concerns. Such cooperation need not undermine their independence, provided that participation remains voluntary and the authority to determine the content of individual sermons rests with the scholars themselves.
At the same time, religious autonomy does not require scholars to remain isolated from one another. A community confronting a widespread problem can benefit from cooperation among its religious leaders, educational institutions, health professionals, civil society organisations and families. Each has a different role, and collaboration can be useful when the boundaries of authority are respected.
The distinction lies in who makes the decision. An invitation to cooperate is different from an instruction that must be obeyed. A suggested theme is different from a compulsory text. Consultation is different from control. The credibility of any initiative depends on keeping these distinctions clear in both its design and its public communication.
If a common-theme initiative is to proceed, it should therefore be built on consultation with a broad range of religious scholars, transparency about its purpose and an explicit assurance that no scholar is required to deliver a prescribed script. Any proposed committee should explain whether its role is advisory, how its topics are selected and how it will preserve the independence of individual khateebs.
These safeguards would not weaken the initiative. They would make it more credible and help prevent a well-intentioned effort from becoming a source of unnecessary mistrust.
An important aspect of the debate is the need to distinguish between the moral authority of religious scholars and the administrative authority of institutions. An imam derives his credibility from religious knowledge, personal integrity and the confidence of his congregation. His ability to address sensitive matters rests substantially on the freedom to explain religious teachings in a manner he considers appropriate to the circumstances of his audience. Any initiative involving Friday sermons must recognise that this relationship cannot be reduced to an administrative exercise.
At the same time, encouraging scholars to discuss common social concerns does not necessarily diminish their authority. Religious leaders have historically consulted one another, exchanged interpretations and responded collectively to challenges affecting their communities. Such engagement becomes problematic only when consultation gives way to compulsion or when an administrative arrangement is allowed to determine what scholars may or may not communicate. The essential safeguard is therefore not to discourage coordination, but to ensure that coordination remains consultative and does not evolve into a mechanism for controlling religious expression.
A common theme need not mean identical sermons
The practical implications of this distinction deserve greater attention. If drug addiction is selected as a subject for discussion, one imam might focus on the responsibility of parents, another on the importance of compassion towards affected individuals, and another on the duty of the community to support rehabilitation and prevent social exclusion. All could contribute to the same public objective while retaining their individual approach.
Such diversity can be an asset. Congregations differ in their circumstances, and scholars may consider different aspects of the same problem more relevant to their audiences. A rural congregation, for instance, may require a different emphasis from a congregation in an urban locality. A useful initiative would leave room for these differences rather than assuming that uniform wording is necessary for a collective message to have an impact.
Indeed, the success of any awareness effort should be measured by whether it helps people understand a problem and take constructive action, not by whether every mosque uses identical language. If the objective is to address social evils, the emphasis must remain on informed guidance, meaningful engagement and tangible community benefit.
A shared subject can provide direction without dictating interpretation. It can encourage religious scholars to give urgent problems sustained attention while allowing each of them to determine how best to communicate with their congregation. That approach respects the diversity of religious scholarship and recognises that effective guidance depends on context, credibility and understanding.
The pulpit must remain a place of trust
The Friday pulpit occupies a distinctive position in Muslim society because congregations approach it expecting religious guidance rather than political messaging or administrative instructions. Preserving that trust is a responsibility shared by religious scholars and institutions. An imam should be able to speak about social problems, challenge harmful practices and encourage reform without being perceived as speaking on behalf of a political authority. Equally, the congregation should have confidence that the sermon reflects the scholar’s religious judgement and sincere concern for the community.
This does not mean that social and public issues should be excluded from religious discourse. On the contrary, questions involving honesty, justice, family responsibility, the protection of vulnerable people and the welfare of young people are deeply relevant to community life. The important consideration is that these issues should be addressed through independent religious reasoning, with the freedom to explain, contextualise and offer practical guidance.
Any arrangement that strengthens this role must protect the confidence between the imam and the congregation. Voluntary cooperation can help religious leaders give greater attention to neglected problems, but the value of such cooperation will depend on the freedom of each scholar to speak sincerely and the public’s confidence that the pulpit has not become an instrument of external control.
That confidence is not secured through declarations alone. It is built through consistent practice, openness and respect for the independence of religious scholars. Institutions seeking cooperation from the religious community must recognise that trust is strengthened when scholars are treated as partners rather than as recipients of instructions.
Social reform requires more than a sermon
There is also a practical limitation that must be acknowledged. Friday sermons can raise awareness and influence attitudes, but they cannot independently resolve problems rooted in unemployment, addiction, family breakdown, social isolation or inadequate access to mental health services. Religious guidance can encourage people to seek assistance and can help reduce stigma, but it must be complemented by professional intervention and effective public support.
For example, a sermon highlighting drug abuse can encourage parents to recognise warning signs and urge communities to support treatment. Its message will have greater practical value when families can access counselling, rehabilitation and reliable medical advice. Similarly, greater attention to emotional distress among young people should be accompanied by awareness of mental health services and an environment in which seeking help is not treated as a source of shame.
This wider approach would prevent the discussion from becoming confined to the wording or coordination of sermons. The real test of any initiative is whether it contributes to a sustained response to the problems it identifies. Religious leaders can help shape public attitudes, while health professionals, educators, families and public institutions must fulfil their respective responsibilities. Cooperation among these groups offers a more meaningful path towards social reform than expecting any single institution to carry the entire burden.
If the objective is to confront social evils, the effort should extend beyond the mosque and into homes, schools and neighbourhoods. Families need reliable information and access to support. Young people need opportunities, guidance and safe spaces to discuss their difficulties. Those affected by addiction or mental distress need assistance rather than exclusion. Religious leaders can encourage these responses, but lasting progress depends on the participation of the wider community and institutions equipped to provide practical help.
Why transparency matters more than speculation
The controversy also demonstrates how quickly uncertainty can create anxiety when an issue touches religious sentiment. In the absence of a clearly communicated framework, a proposal to discuss common themes can be interpreted in different ways. Some may view it as an attempt to strengthen the social role of mosques, while others may fear that it could establish a precedent for external interference in religious affairs. Neither interpretation should automatically be treated as the definitive account of the initiative without examining the facts.
The most effective way to address these differing perceptions is for the concerned institution to explain the proposal in precise terms. If the intention is to encourage scholars to voluntarily highlight particular social problems, that intention should be stated unambiguously. If a committee is envisaged, its composition, mandate and limitations should be made public. Such transparency would enable religious scholars and the wider community to assess the initiative on its actual merits rather than on assumptions about what it might eventually become.
It is equally important that public debate distinguish between a proposal, a decision and an implemented directive. These represent different stages of institutional action. Treating them as interchangeable can turn an unresolved question into an apparent fact, deepening mistrust before the relevant details have been established. Responsible discussion requires the same standard from every side: claims should be supported by evidence, clarifications should be considered seriously, and unanswered questions should be addressed openly.
The public should not be expected to choose between unverified claims and general assurances. It deserves a clear account of what has been proposed, what has been agreed upon and what authority any committee would possess. Such information would enable people to reach informed conclusions without being driven by anxiety or compelled to dismiss every concern as baseless.
The Waqf Board can help by clearly distinguishing between any proposal to identify common sermon themes and a formal instruction to deliver uniform sermons. Religious scholars can explain the nature of their consultations and the limits of any collective arrangement. Political leaders can scrutinise the process without treating every discussion about coordination as evidence of interference. Media organisations, meanwhile, have a responsibility to report the distinction between allegations, clarifications and established decisions.
This approach would allow legitimate concerns to be addressed without turning uncertainty into alarm. It would also protect the credibility of religious leaders, whose influence depends substantially on the trust of their congregations.
An opportunity to build confidence through consultation
Rather than allowing the issue to deepen divisions, the present debate can provide an opportunity to establish a clearer and more trusting relationship between the Waqf Board and religious scholars. Consultation should involve a broad range of scholars and allow differing opinions to be expressed without apprehension. The purpose should be to identify areas of common concern, not to secure artificial unanimity or place dissenting voices under pressure.
If scholars agree that certain social issues require greater attention, they can decide voluntarily how best to communicate those concerns to their congregations. If they disagree with a proposed method, the disagreement should be addressed through dialogue and clear explanations of the initiative’s objectives and limitations. A transparent, consultative approach would help ensure that any beneficial effort is not undermined by uncertainty about its purpose.
Trust is built when institutions explain their decisions, acknowledge legitimate questions and demonstrate respect for the independence of those with whom they seek to cooperate. It cannot be secured merely by asking people not to worry, just as it cannot be protected by treating every proposal as evidence of an impending threat. The stronger course is to establish clear principles, communicate them openly and allow the facts to guide public judgement.
There is also merit in ensuring that any discussion about common themes remains open to religious scholars who may hold different views on the proposed approach. Genuine consultation does not mean that everyone must agree; it means that concerns are heard and considered before decisions are made. A process that respects disagreement is more likely to earn confidence than one that seeks to eliminate it.
If the proposed effort is voluntary, that principle should be visible in its functioning, not merely stated in public. Scholars should retain the freedom to select their subjects, develop their arguments and decide how best to guide their congregations. With such safeguards in place, cooperation on social issues can be pursued without creating the impression that religious authority is being transferred to an administrative body.
A question of trust, not merely sermons
Ultimately, the controversy is about more than what is said from the pulpit on a Friday. It concerns the relationship between religious scholars, administrative institutions, political leadership and the people whose confidence all of them seek to retain.
The clarifications offered by Maulana Abdul Rashid Dawoodi, Maulana Raiyaz Ul Haq Noorqanadi and Darakhshan Andrabi indicate that the proposal should not simply be equated with an order compelling imams to read government-written sermons. Their stated position is that scholars should retain control over what they preach, while cooperation on pressing social issues can help strengthen public awareness.
That position deserves to be examined fairly, just as concerns about institutional authority deserve transparent answers. Neither reassurance nor criticism should be used as a substitute for establishing the facts. The appropriate standard is straightforward: protect the independence of religious scholarship, make the proposed arrangements clear and ensure that any collective initiative remains consistent with those principles.
Kashmir has urgent social challenges that demand the involvement of families, educators, health professionals, community organisations and religious leaders. Drug abuse, family distress and the emotional struggles of young people cannot be addressed through a single sermon or institution. They require sustained cooperation, compassion and practical support.
If religious scholars choose to speak together about these concerns, their collective voice can be valuable. If they have reservations about a proposed arrangement, those reservations should be heard and addressed through consultation. Neither course requires the public to assume that religious autonomy has already been compromised.
The debate should also serve as a reminder that religious freedom and social responsibility are not opposing ideals. A religious scholar can retain complete independence in deciding what to preach while choosing to work alongside others to address a shared social concern. An institution can encourage cooperation without claiming authority over religious interpretation. Political leaders can scrutinise institutional decisions without prematurely treating a proposal as proof of interference.
The way forward is therefore neither to dismiss all concerns nor to allow unverified fears to dominate the discussion. It is to insist on facts, transparency and mutual respect. A shared effort to confront social problems can be welcomed without surrendering the principle that religious scholars must remain free to guide their congregations according to their own judgement.
That balance—between cooperation and independence, social responsibility and religious autonomy—is the real issue at stake. It is also the basis on which this debate can move from apprehension towards a constructive understanding. The people of Kashmir deserve a discussion grounded in facts rather than conjecture, and religious institutions deserve the confidence that comes from transparent processes and respect for their independence.
Ultimately, the success of any initiative should be judged not by the controversy it generates, but by whether it strengthens public trust, respects religious scholarship and contributes meaningfully to the welfare of society. If these principles remain central, the present debate can become an opportunity to reinforce both religious autonomy and a collective commitment to addressing the challenges confronting Kashmir.
