A major political storm erupted across the country on Saturday (29th November) after Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Mahmood Madani declared that “if there is oppression, there will be jihad”.

His words, spoken during the organisation’s national governing body meeting at the Barkatullah Education Campus in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, triggered intense national debate. Madani accused the Indian judiciary of failing to safeguard the constitutional rights of minorities and claimed that court rulings were increasingly moving under government influence.

Madani, who heads one of India’s oldest Islamic organisations founded in 1919, said his remarks were meant to highlight the conditions faced by minorities in the country. But the phrase about jihad quickly became the centre of controversy. Critics argued that it carried an undertone of confrontation, while Madani insisted that the concept had been misunderstood and stripped of its spiritual meaning. Despite his clarification, backlash poured in, particularly from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which accused him of provoking Muslims, misguiding the public, and undermining constitutional institutions.

According to Madani, his intention was to assert minority rights, not encourage conflict. Yet the reaction showed how emotionally charged the debate around religion, law, and national identity has become. His defence of the word “jihad” — framed as an ethical and moral struggle in Islamic teachings — did little to calm the growing political tensions that followed his speech.

Madani’s criticism of the Judiciary and the Constitution

Continuing his address, Madani sharply criticised several recent court verdicts, arguing they weakened the Constitution’s protections for minorities. He questioned why some cases were being entertained despite the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which legally maintains the religious character of places of worship as they existed in 1947. In this context, he delivered one of his most controversial lines: “The Supreme Court is entitled to be called ‘Supreme’ only as long as the Constitution is protected there. If this does not happen, then it does not deserve to be called supreme even in a non-remnant.”

This remark was interpreted as a direct challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court. Madani said recent judicial decisions had “openly violated the rights of minorities guaranteed in the Constitution”, calling them constitutional deviations influenced by political pressure. His criticism reflected a growing feeling among some groups that judicial independence had weakened, although many others rejected this claim as baseless.

Madani also described what he believed to be the broader public mindset toward Muslims. He said that 10% of people support Muslims, 30% oppose them, and 60% remain silent. He urged the Muslim community to reach out to this silent majority, warning that if these neutral individuals “turn against Muslims, then there will be a big danger in the country.” His comments suggested a perception of rising social division and the need for dialogue to ease tensions.

‘Jihad was and will always remain holy’: Madani

A large part of Madani’s speech focused on how the term jihad is used in public debates. He argued that the word had been repeatedly distorted by the government, the media, and political opponents. He said: “By using phrases like ‘love jihad’, ‘land jihad’, ‘education jihad’, ‘spit jihad’, etc, the freedom of Muslims and their religion is being insulted… This is an old pattern: whenever any terrorist act occurs anywhere, it is labelled jihad, and Islam and Muslims are subjected to taunts, accusations and baseless allegations. It must be clarified that in Islam, jihad is a sacred religious obligation.”

He then explained that the Quran uses the word jihad in many ways, all connected to moral upliftment and human welfare. According to him, every usage of the word relates to improving a person’s character, protecting dignity, and strengthening society. He stated: “Wherever it is used in the sense of war and fighting, that too is for ending oppression and corruption and for the survival of humanity. Therefore, wherever there is oppression, there will be jihad. I repeat: wherever there is oppression, there will be jihad.”

To emphasise the difference between religious ideals and real-world conditions, Madani added: “In a democratic and secular country like India, where the concept of an Islamic state does not exist, any talk in the name of jihad is not even a subject of discussion.” He said Indian Muslims are bound to respect the Constitution: “Muslims are bound by constitutional loyalty, and the government is also responsible for protecting the rights of citizens. If the government fails in this, it will be the government’s responsibility, not ours.”

Madani’s statements on Vande Mataram spark new argument

Madani also stirred a fresh debate by touching on the issue of reciting ‘Vande Mataram’. His line — “A dead community surrenders” — drew strong reactions nationwide. He suggested that any community agreeing to recite the song under pressure is “a dead community.” According to him, if Muslims are asked to recite Vande Mataram, they should not accept it blindly. He said, “If they say ‘say Vande Mataram,’ they will start reading it. This will be the identity of a dead community. If we are a living community, we will have to face the situation.”

At a time when debates about national symbols, patriotism, and religious freedom are highly charged, these remarks were quickly seen as provocative. His comments added another layer to the ongoing national conversation about identity and constitutional rights.

He also addressed the controversy around halal, arguing that the concept was being deliberately misinterpreted. He said: “The purely religious concept of halal is being systematically defamed.” He clarified that halal is not limited to ritual slaughter. “Halal does not mean only ritual slaughter; it is the pure way of life of an entire Muslim life. Halal includes the basic principles of lawful earnings, honesty in employment and trade, and the correct use of wealth,” he said.

BJP hits back strongly, calls Madani’s comments dangerous

The reaction from the BJP was swift and severe. Leaders of the party accused Maulana Mahmood Madani of deliberately provoking Muslims and attacking India’s constitutional institutions. They said his words were not just irresponsible but openly harmful to the country’s social unity.

Responding to Madani’s remarks, BJP leader Narottam Mishra asked what kind of thinking encouraged such statements. He said, “…India will no longer tolerate such a mindset. They are questioning the courts; they are questioning Vande Mataram. What kind of mindset is this?” His tone reflected the party’s concern that Madani’s speech could inflame tensions already felt across several communities.

BJP MLA Rameshwar Sharma was even more aggressive in his criticism. He declared that “new Jinnahs are emerging in India who are trying to provoke the country’s Muslims.” Sharma demanded that the Supreme Court take suo motu action against Madani for his remarks. According to him, Madani was “violating the Constitution” and “challenging the Supreme Court,” and he warned Madani to “stay within limits.”

Sharma escalated further, claiming that individuals like Madani “produce terrorists, jihadists, rapists” and back campaigns such as “love jihad, land jihad, and thook jihad.” He questioned why such people should expect sympathy or legal support after promoting activities he linked to violence. He asked whether they expected the Supreme Court to “serve them biryani” despite such behaviour.

Taking the harshest line, Sharma said: “Will you spread terrorism, kill innocents in India, and expect the Supreme Court to reward you? The Supreme Court will hang you.” He added that the government “will not feed sweets to terrorists” and told Madani to “keep his misbehaviour in check.”

He argued that anyone who “violates the Constitution or questions the judiciary” should face the strictest possible action, even under laws similar to sedition. According to him, the country would not tolerate anti-national activity of any kind. Sharma ended with a sharp comparison: “If your children become doctors, the country will salute you. But if they become doctors who throw bombs, they will also be blown up by bombs.”

This fierce exchange added more heat to the already strained relationship between the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and BJP leadership. Both sides accused the other of damaging national unity and defying constitutional values, deepening an already sensitive national conversation.

Madani chosen as the ‘Person of the Year – 2023’

Maulana Mahmood Madani, who serves as President of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (M), was selected as the ‘Person of the Year – 2023’ by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre. The recognition came in the 14th annual edition of The Muslim 500: The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims, where Madani was highlighted prominently for his influence.

This honour added to his public profile, especially at a time when his statements were attracting both strong support and strong criticism. His recent comments fit into a broader pattern: he often takes firm and controversial positions on national topics like the Uniform Civil Code, religious freedoms, alleged Islamophobia, and the rights of Islamic institutions. These issues have frequently placed him at the centre of national debate.

Madani was particularly vocal during the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand earlier this year. When Uttarakhand became the first state after independence to enforce a UCC, he sharply criticised the move. He described the law as a violation of the constitutional right to religious freedom and compared the step to an “assault on democracy.”

He argued that the government had ignored the objections raised by Muslim minorities and dismissed the views of the Law Commission of India, which had previously said that a nationwide UCC was neither essential nor ideal. According to him, the UCC was imposed in a “dictatorial manner,” without proper public consultation or democratic discussion.

Madani insisted that Muslims would continue to follow their personal laws and Sharia principles, resisting any attempt to dilute their traditions — but always “within the bounds of the law and Constitution.” His statements triggered widespread political debate, with critics accusing him of blocking reforms meant to promote equality and gender justice.

Appeal for a new law against ‘Islamophobia’

In June 2024, Madani and the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind demanded strong legislation against what they called rising Islamophobia in India. Their appeal, however, immediately drew controversy because of the organisation’s long record of legally assisting individuals accused of terrorism.

Reports show that since 2007, the Jamiat’s legal cell has supported nearly 700 terror-accused individuals, obtaining more than 190 acquittals — many not due to proof of innocence but because of procedural errors in investigations. Their involvement in major cases like the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts, the 2006 Malegaon blasts, and even the 26/11 Mumbai attacks led many to question the purpose of their call for such a law.

Madani also accused government agencies and child rights bodies of unfairly targeting madrasas under the excuse of regulation. He argued that directions such as compulsory Surya Namaskar, Saraswati Puja, or reciting Hindu prayers violated constitutional freedom of religion. Critics dismissed these claims as exaggerated and politically motivated, saying they were meant to create a false sense of persecution.

The Jamiat further opposed the Uniform Civil Code, asked for protection of Islamic institutions, and expressed concerns about reservation policies. These positions continued to intensify debates around religious identity, autonomy, and the political climate in India.

Threat-like remarks during the UCC dispute

The controversy surrounding Madani and the UCC is not new. It dates back to May 2022, when the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind passed a strong resolution against the proposed national Uniform Civil Code during a two-day convention attended by thousands of Muslim organisations.

The resolution warned that Muslims would “take all measures” against the UCC, though it clarified that these measures would remain “within constitutional limits.” Critics argued that the phrasing sounded like a threat and could create fear or misunderstanding.

Madani intensified controversy further by saying, “We had a chance to go to Pakistan, but we did not go. Those who harp on about Pakistan should go there themselves.” He added that Muslims had become “strangers in their own country” and said they would compromise on everything except their religious faith.

During the same event, Jamiat official Maulana Niaz Ahmed Farooqui warned that disputes like the Gyanvapi mosque case could lead to “the creation of another Pakistan.” His words were condemned across the political spectrum for invoking a divisive and painful chapter of history.

Demand for a stronger blasphemy law

Another major controversy erupted in August 2022 when Madani demanded strict punishment for former BJP MLA T Raja Singh, who was accused of making offensive remarks about Prophet Muhammad. Madani argued that the party’s internal action against Singh was insufficient and called for a new law that would protect the honour of religious figures.

Critics responded that such a law could threaten free speech, be misused, and create fear. The demand sparked widespread debate, especially since several countries around the world were moving away from blasphemy-related restrictions, not toward them.

Backing the Waqf Act and resisting proposed changes

In September 2022, Madani and the Jamiat opposed a petition challenging major provisions of the Waqf Act. They approached the Delhi High Court defending the current structure of the Waqf system and argued that attempts to amend the law were part of a broader effort to target Muslim religious practices.

Madani’s recent remarks on jihad, judicial rulings, and Vande Mataram did not appear suddenly — they fit into a years-long pattern of bold and often divisive positions. These issues continue to shape national discussions about constitutional rights, religious identity, and political polarisation. His supporters argue that he is defending minority rights, while critics believe he is deepening divisions and challenging the country’s unity.