Baba Yunus Muhammad

“Indeed, those who say, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ and then remain steadfast – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. They are the companions of Paradise, abiding therein eternally, as a reward for what they used to do.” (Surah Al-Ahqaf, 46:13–14).

With deep sorrow and reverence, I join the global Muslim community in mourning the passing of Professor Khurshid Ahmad, who departed this world on 13th April 2025 in Leicester, United Kingdom, at the age of 93. An extraordinary scholar, thinker, and pioneer whose towering intellect and unwavering commitment to the Islamic worldview reshaped the contours of modern Islamic economics and socio-political thought, his death marks the end of an era and the beginning of his eternal reward, Insha’Allah. Professor Khurshid Ahmad was not merely a scholar; he was a movement, an architect of the discipline of Islamic economics, who redefined economic paradigms by placing Islamic values at the heart of human development and social justice. His foundational contributions to the field of Islamic economics elevated it from abstract theorization to a dynamic discipline that now challenges prevailing paradigms of development, justice, and wealth distribution across the globe.

Professor Khurshid Ahmad was born in 1932 in Delhi and later migrated to Pakistan, where he would go on to shape the intellectual and political trajectory of the country – and the wider Muslim world – for more than six decades. He held a Master’s degree in Economics from the University of Karachi and later obtained an M.A. in Islamic Studies and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Leicester, where his academic foundation in both conventional and Islamic disciplines laid the groundwork for a revolutionary synthesis of knowledge.

In the 1970s, he co-founded the Islamic Foundation in Leicester, which soon emerged as one of the most important research and educational institutions in the West dedicated to Islamic scholarship, economics, and interfaith understanding. Under his stewardship, the Islamic Foundation became a sanctuary for critical thought and a beacon for the moral revival of Muslim societies through authentic and contemporary applications of Islam.

As a Senator in the Parliament of Pakistan, Prof. Khurshid Ahmad brought his intellectual commitments into the political arena, advocating for policies grounded in justice, equity, and Islamic moral philosophy. His contributions as Federal Minister for Planning and Development and his work in shaping Pakistan’s socio-economic vision were both principled and transformative. He was an enduring figure in Jamaat-e-Islami, where he merged activism with scholarship in service to the Ummah.

Prof. Khurshid Ahmad’s role as the founding chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in Islamabad and his leadership in countless international Islamic forums speak volumes of his far-reaching influence. His writings, lectures, and policy proposals reshaped economic discourse by offering an Islamic alternative to exploitative capitalist and materialist models. Through his tireless advocacy, Islamic economics moved from theory to practical models influencing institutions, banking systems, and development programs worldwide.

On a deeply personal note, I had the profound honor of encountering Prof. Khurshid Ahmad in the United Kingdom during a pivotal time in my own journey. My personal journey with Prof. Khurshid Ahmad began in the 1980s, a time when I was earnestly searching for meaning and direction in the world of Islamic economic thought. It was in him that I found a living embodiment of principled scholarship and steadfast commitment to the Islamic worldview. Our early conversations, whether in person or through correspondence, left an indelible mark on me. He welcomed me not just as a student of ideas but as a fellow traveler on the road to intellectual liberation.

Through him, I came to appreciate the subtle intricacies of merging divine revelation with economic praxis. His mentorship and warmth were as powerful as his intellect. He challenged me, inspired me, and ignited in me a lifelong devotion to the cause of Islamic economics and the vision of a more equitable global order rooted in faith and ethics. Those moments of mentorship—through dialogue, correspondence, and reflection—left a permanent mark on my thinking and purpose. To me, Prof Khurshid Ahmad was more than a scholar; he was a teacher of the heart. His life was a radiant embodiment of ‘ilm (knowledge), iman (faith), and ‘amal (action).

As we bid farewell to this giant of our time, we also recommit ourselves to the ideals he championed so passionately. Prof. Khurshid Ahmad’s life was not just a contribution—it was a call. A call to rethink our systems, to recalibrate our values, and to strive for a civilization that reflects the mercy and justice of Islam.

The Africa Islamic Economic Forum (AFRIEF) can rightfully be considered part of the enduring legacy of Professor Khurshid Ahmad. His teachings, vision, and intellectual contributions have profoundly shaped the mission and direction of AFRIEF, and continue to inspire our work today. I firmly believe that the most meaningful tribute we can offer to this great man is to ensure that his intellectual and spiritual legacy not only endures but thrives. To this end, we are committed to launching a range of initiatives in his memory—integrating his thought into university curricula across Africa, embedding his principles into policy dialogues, and advancing development models firmly rooted in the ethics and ideals of Islamic economics.

Finally, Professor Khurshid Ahmad was not just a voice of his time—he was a voice for all time. He reminded us that Islam is not a private affair, but a comprehensive way of life with solutions to the world’s deepest problems. His life was a call to action—a call to build just, moral, and God-conscious societies.

May Allah, the Most Merciful, forgive his shortcomings, accept his lifelong service to the Deen, grant him Jannatul Firdaus, and raise his status among the Siddiqin, Shuhada, and Saliheen. Ameen.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum, Tamale, Ghana.

Chidi Amuta

The Nigerian political opposition is scoring desired attention from the Tinubu’s disappearing   antics. In apparent response to the growing outcry of opposition voices and the enlightened citizenry about the President’s prolonged absence in a bad time, the Presidency has just issued a second statement explaining and justifying Tinubu’s mysterious vacation in Europe.  The new statement is not different from the original one except that it aims at indicating that the President is at work even if away from his physical office in Abuja. It is becoming futile and even foolish creating an illusion of presidential overwork to cover up whatever else is keeping Tinubu away from Abuja.   The man has been absent from his official place of work for longer than makes sense. Period.

Ordinarily, the political opposition has every business commandeering the matter of Mr. Tinubu’s whereabouts. Every misstep of the president is a quarry for the opposition. His inexplicable long absence is of course part of the opposition’s arsenal in the build up to the frenzy of the 2027 campaigns. A president missing in action in a period of general worsening   insecurity and anarchic breakdown of order is everybody’s business. Predictably,  the opposition has conveniently added the president’s  prolonged absence to their growing inventory of anti Tinubu atrocities.

Both Atiku Abubakar of the PDP and Peter Obi of the LP , leading opposition figures, have screamed out loud that Tinubu has no business being away from the country at a time when the nation is in dire straights. There is trouble everywhere. People are being killed on an industrial scale almost daily in Plateau, Benue, Ebonyi and other vulnerable states. Boko Haram has reportedly returned to full business in Borno and its environs, gobbling up local governments and villages and killing as many soldiers as they can find. The political atmosphere in Rivers state remains uncertain and confusing as the Sole Administrator of the emergency rule there seems somewhat confused about his precise mandate or the exact meaning of emergency rule in a functioning democracy.  Whether or not Tinubu willed it, his latest mysterious vacation has given his growing opposition an early consensus.

Very few Nigerians care about where Mr. Tinubu will spend tonight. Fewer still ever seem to notice when the president is present or absent in Aso Villa. The street side logic is that our life circumstances remain the same whether or not the president is at home or abroad, at work or asleep. It is sad that a president that has been in office for just under two years has worked his way to a level of consequential irrelevance and ineffectuality where his presence or absence makes no difference to the people whose mandate he parades. In contrast, his predecessor only managed to get to this point at the middle of his second unimpressive term. At that point, it no longer mattered to mot Nigerians whether Mr. Buhari was coming or going!

From the onset, Tinubu has been mostly abroad anyway. In preparation for his busy air miles presidency, the president hurriedly equipped himself with a super luxury “new” presidential jet bought under a very opaque procurement process or lack of it. Some argue that it is part of his job specification that he jets around the world doing the business of Nigeria. Lobbying for investment. Expanding the reach of Africa’s largest democracy and attending the many meetings that make statesmen something of travelling salesmen. No one has yet explained why and how a nation with dwindling fortunes and strategic importance should be present at every small gathering of world leaders even if Nigeria has tangential interest.

Nonetheless, the more significant side of the argument on Tinubu’s junkets is that an elected president has an implicit obligation to stay home most of the time to man the ever –turbulent boat of the Nigerian state. Purveyors of this argument go further to insist that the greater part of the president’s attention is required at home. The reasons are many: our nationalism has far too many unresolved grey areas.  The business of nation building is far too incomplete for those elected to man the ship of state to stay too far from home for too long.

These clashing perspectives do not quite impress Mr. Bola Tinubu and his handlers. The man loves to work from anywhere else but home or his luxurious Abuja office. He loves to be air borne like his predecessor who would jet out to the nearest European capital to check an ear ache or bad tooth in a small clinic.

For Tinubu, his handlers insist that his far too frequent foreign missions and sojourns have little to do with any specific ailments or health concerns. He just feels uncomfortable with too many distracting visitors from local politicians and associates. For him, the business of overseeing Nigeria is too serious to allow for too long a stream of time wasters. So, he escapes from the rowdy crowd every now and again.

His current absence in Paris is one such example. He was probably seated in the aircraft when his handlers informed Nigerians that the president would be away in France for the next two weeks on a “working visit”, not vacation. During the absence, he would receive and review reports from government departments on the mid term report of his administration. He would be free to summon officials, interview them on the activities of their ministries and departments. For a whole fortnight, the president would work a crowded schedule remotely from Paris!

Where officials need to show up in person, they have to fly to Paris if they cannot fully explain their points on the phone or by email.  The president requires a minimum number of aides and assistants to do the heavy paper work required by his mid term assessment. These officials and assistants will incur costs in hotel bills, estacode allowances and other costs. A two week working vacation in Europe will take a significant toll on the national treasury in an economy that is struggling with liquidity issues. It is even a very scandalous public relations gambit to inform Nigerians that their president is gone abroad for a whole two weeks to do the work for which the state lavishly provides for him to perform in Abuja. I hardly can think of any other country where the leadership will embark on such an expensive excursion in the name of a “working visit.”

Of course Tinubu’s handlers have readily drawn our attention to the fact that the president is still working for Nigeria from Europe. In the modern era of real time information technology and speed of light communication, executives can discharge their functions from anywhere without any significant loss of efficiency and effectiveness. That is hardly at issue.

A president is the political leader of a nation. He is elected to lead people through the vicissitudes of daily life. That is why most leaders only leave home in extreme necessity. And when they do leave to undertake important foreign trips, they adhere to a tight schedule that brings them home as quickly as possible. Political leadership is a homebound undertaking. The leader is not self -employed. He is an employee of the people as an electorate and public in a republican democracy. Every excuse to move from one point to the other must be credibly explained to the people. Such explanations must make sense from a cost benefit perspective and even at the level of common sense.

Casually telling 300 million Nigerians that their president is relocating from Abuja to Paris on “a working visit” is an insult of the intelligence of the people as well as a reckless waste of public funds. The various statements that have emanated from the Presidency on this matter cast a pall on the basic intelligence of the issuing presidential minions that issued them as well as casting the institution itself in very poor light.

Yes indeed, the presidency can be a crowded enterprise. That is why a good number of countries have established presidential retreats outside the official residence of the President. In the United States, the Camp David retreat was designed and established to provide the president with a comfortable and convenient getaway destination. It has all the conveniences of a presidential palace and also a vacation destination but also serves the president as an alternative work station. He can do his daily schedule from there and even host foreign leaders there while breathing the fresh air of a getaway location.

Nigeria has so many locations that could host a Camp David- type resort for the president.  The Obudu Hills, Yankari Falls, Nike Lake, Ziba Beach, Ikogosi Warm Spring.  Each of these and many other locations  can host a world class presidential getaway resort built at a cost that is only a fraction of the billions being budgeted annually for renovating  existing residences for the President, Vice President and other high officials of state. We can can give such locations our peculiar cultural flavor: have resident dance troupes, entertainers etc. We can build helipads, airports and other facilities to ease access to the location.

These speculations presume that the reasons that have been advanced so far by the presidency for Tinubu’s current absence are altruistic and basically honest and true. There is a high possibility that the president could be on an extended medical vacation if beer palor whispers in Abuja are to be believed. In that case, it is still irresponsible of the presidency not to openly inform Nigerians if indeed the president needs overseas medical attention. It is in fact easier to communicate a medical bulletin and save themselves and the public these convoluted and fake adolescent explanations. Nigerians would understand that the president is human and has a right to suffer ailments from time to time for which he might need better medical care than what is available at home.

A man above seventy would be expected to suffer one health issue or the other from time to time. If indeed his personal doctor is in Paris or London, he is well within his rights to undertake such medical trips or even take medical vacations to attend to his health needs while the Vice President acts in his absence.  All these Mickey Mouse statements and childish attempts to disguise the truth are devaluing the credibility of the presidency as an institution. The truth is often light in weight. Incoherent lies are heavy baggage on the other hand.

Baba Yunus Muhammad

Once hailed as a beacon of hope, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is now on life support, thanks to sweeping cuts orchestrated under Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine. With over 83% of its programs terminated and its functions absorbed into the State Department, the global development agency is witnessing the twilight of its influence—and the consequences are devastating. From Myanmar to Sudan, from Afghanistan to South Africa, millions are suffering not just from poverty or war, but from abandonment.

This isn’t merely a bureaucratic reorganization. It’s a fundamental redefinition of America’s role in the world—and those who pay the price are the poor, the displaced, the sick, and the voiceless.

Myanmar: Earthquake in a Vacuum

When a 7.7 magnitude earthquake ripped through Myanmar earlier this year, it was the first large-scale natural disaster to test Trump’s defunded USAID apparatus. The result? Catastrophic failure. With more than 3,300 dead and thousands injured, aid was trickling in—if at all. Compared to the $185 million pledged to Turkey and Syria after a similar disaster in 2023, Myanmar received a meager $9 million from the U.S.

Equally disturbing was the abrupt dismissal of U.S. aid workers dispatched to assess the situation, further undercutting rescue and recovery efforts. The absence of logistical and humanitarian support left Myanmar’s already war-battered population utterly alone.

Afghanistan: Starving in the Shadows

Afghanistan, once heavily reliant on U.S. aid, is grappling with the sudden evaporation of resources. With over 23 million people in urgent need, the World Food Programme’s operations have ground to a halt. Emergency food distribution has ceased. Children are dying of hunger, and maternal health services have collapsed.

Beyond nutrition, cuts have decimated basic healthcare. Over 200 WHO-supported facilities are now closed or non-functional. Mental health, clean water access, and gender-based violence interventions have all been derailed. What remains is a nation in silent crisis, enduring one of the most severe humanitarian withdrawals in modern history.

Sudan: A War Zone Forgotten

Sudan’s civil war has entered its third year, and with it comes famine, disease, and mass displacement. An estimated 30 million people—over half the population—now need humanitarian assistance. The U.S. had previously accounted for 44% of Sudan’s $1.8 billion aid response. That support is gone.

Community kitchens have shuttered. Refugees in Chad are left without food or clean water. Local NGOs are crumbling under financial strain, and countless families reliant on single salaries supported by aid organizations now face destitution. In one of the world’s most desperate emergencies, the U.S. has pulled the plug.

South Africa: Halting the War Against AIDS

One of the most tragic consequences of these cuts is the damage done to the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)—a global leader in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. In South Africa, where over 7 million people live with HIV, the withdrawal of PEPFAR funding threatens to roll back decades of progress.

Without intervention, researchers warn of an additional 601,000 deaths and 565,000 new infections by 2034. Beyond treatment, vital services like food vouchers and support groups have also disappeared. In the race to cure HIV, the U.S. has hit the brakes.

A Global Leadership Crisis

What unites these case studies is not merely human suffering—it is the erosion of trust. Aid workers, researchers, and officials warn that the message is now clear: the United States is no longer a reliable partner. And where America retreats, other powers are poised to dominate. China, Russia, and India are already stepping into the humanitarian vacuum, recalibrating the global balance of influence in real time.

This shift is not just humanitarian—it is geopolitical. Foreign assistance is not merely about goodwill; it is strategic. It builds alliances, promotes stability, and undergirds U.S. soft power. The cost of losing that influence will far outweigh the budget lines saved.

America’s retreat is not a policy shift—it is a vacuum. And in that vacuum, suffering multiplies.

The Islamic World Must Not Stand Idle

While America’s humanitarian withdrawal draws justified outrage, the silence from wealthier Muslim-majority nations—especially those in the Gulf—is equally deafening. With sovereign wealth funds in the trillions and some of the highest per capita incomes globally, countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait have the means to lead a global Islamic humanitarian renaissance. Yet too often, they choose restraint.

The Holy Qur’an commands believers to “stand out firmly for justice” and to care for “the orphan, the poor, and the wayfarer.” This is not a call for charity—it is a call for responsibility. From the suffering of Afghan widows to starving Sudanese children and crumbling AIDS clinics in Africa, the Ummah is bleeding—and the hands stretched out to save it are too few.

Saudi Arabia, as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, holds not just spiritual authority, but moral obligation. The UAE, proud host of global summits and international expos, must now translate its image into impact. Qatar, which recently mediated conflicts in Gaza and Afghanistan, must do more than diplomacy. It must fund survival. Oman and Kuwait, too, must rise.

In the face of this humanitarian void, Gulf nations can—and must—launch a Marshall Plan for the Islamic World: A coordinated, sustained, and well-funded response to the crises engulfing Muslim populations worldwide. They must empower Islamic NGOs, strengthen multilateral aid structures, and invest in health, food security, education, and dignity.

Faith without action, the Qur’an reminds us, is like a mirage in the desert.

Conclusion: From Retreat to Responsibility

America’s withdrawal has exposed a vacuum not only in aid but in moral leadership. Yet it also presents an opportunity—for the world’s wealthier nations, particularly in the Muslim world, to step up and stand out. The Gulf countries, blessed with wealth and guided by faith, are uniquely positioned to fill this void—not as an afterthought to Western failure, but as architects of a new humanitarian order.

If the United States has chosen isolation, then let others choose intervention. Let them choose mercy. Let them choose to feed the hungry, to shelter the refugee, to heal the wounded. And let them do so not for applause, but because the alternative is unthinkable.

The time has come to ask: If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President, Africa Islamic Economic Forum, Ghana