Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Mahmood Madani triggered a national controversy on Saturday (29th November) after asserting that “if there is oppression, there will be jihad,” a statement he made while sharply criticising the judiciary and accusing it of failing to protect the constitutional rights of minorities.
Speaking at the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’s national governing body meeting held at Barkatullah Education Campus in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Madani suggested that several recent court verdicts, including the Babri Masjid decision and the judgment that criminalised instant triple talaq, reflected a judiciary working “under government pressure.” His comments have set off a storm of political reactions, especially from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which accused him of inciting Muslims, spreading misinformation, and challenging constitutional institutions.
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh: Islamic scholar Maulana Mahmood Madani says, “Law and order in a country, and the creation of a crime-free society are impossible without justice, absolutely impossible. Sadly, it must be said that over the past few years, especially after verdicts in… pic.twitter.com/DEHhkaFnpo
— IANS (@ians_india) November 29, 2025
Madani, who leads one of India’s oldest Islamic organisations, founded in 1919, positioned his comments as a defence of minority rights. However, the phrase “if there is oppression, there will be jihad” became the centre of the controversy, as critics argued that it could be interpreted as a call for confrontation. Madani maintained that the word “jihad” was being misrepresented in public discourse, and insisted that he was referring to it in a spiritual and ethical sense rather than violence. But the backlash was swift and intense.
Madani’s critique of the Judiciary and the Constitution
During his speech, Madani argued that a series of recent judgments had weakened constitutional protections for minorities. He highlighted cases being heard in courts despite the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which mandates maintaining the religious character of places of worship as it existed in 1947. Citing this, he said, “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.”
The remark was interpreted by many as a direct challenge to the country’s highest court. Madani further said that the judiciary’s recent decisions “openly violated the rights of minorities guaranteed in the Constitution,” and said that these verdicts indicated constitutional deviations driven by political influence.
He also offered an assessment of the public mood, claiming that “10% of people are supportive of Muslims, 30% are against them, and 60% are silent.” Urging the Muslim community to engage with this silent majority, he warned that if these neutral individuals “turn against Muslims, then there will be a big danger in the country.”
‘Jihad was and will always remain holy’: Madani
A major part of Madani’s speech focused on the interpretation of jihad, a term he claimed had been repeatedly distorted by the government, media, and certain political groups.
Madani 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 said that the “word jihad is used in the Quran in many meanings, but in whichever meaning it is used, it is for the welfare of the individual, society and humanity, for their elevation and for upholding their honour and dignity”.
“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,” Madani said.
He further said, “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.”
“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,” he said.
Madani’s remarks on Vande Mataram trigger another debate
In the same address, Madani also commented on the ongoing debate surrounding the recitation of ‘Vande Mataram.’ His remark, “A dead community surrenders”,sparked fresh criticism, as he suggested that any community that unquestioningly complies with demands to recite the song is “a dead community.”
Madani said that if Muslims are pressured to recite Vande Mataram, they should not accept it passively. “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,” he said.
The comment was viewed as provocative at a time when debates around national symbols and religious freedom had already become politically charged.
He also spoke about halal, alleging that “the purely religious concept of halal is being systematically defamed”.
“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 reacts sharply, calls Madani’s remarks incendiary
Madani’s statements invited an immediate and fierce backlash from the BJP, which accused him of deliberately provoking the Muslim community and attacking constitutional institutions.
Responding to Madani’s comments, BJP leader Narottam Mishra 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?”
BJP MLA Rameshwar Sharma led the charge, saying, “new Jinnahs are emerging in India who are trying to provoke the country’s Muslims.” He demanded that the Supreme Court take suo motu cognisance of Madani’s remarks and initiate action against him.
Sharma accused Madani of “violating the Constitution” and “challenging the Supreme Court,” warning him to “stay within limits.” His response escalated sharply as he claimed that individuals like Madani “produce terrorists, jihadists, rapists” and support movements such as “love jihad, land jihad, and thook jihad.” Sharma also questioned the morality of expecting the Supreme Court to “serve them biryani” after promoting activities he associated with terrorism.
Taking a hard 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 that Madani should “keep his misbehaviour in check.”
Sharma argued that anyone who “violates the Constitution or questions the judiciary” should face strict action, even under sedition-like laws. He warned that India is not a country that would tolerate anti-national activities. “If your children become doctors, the country will salute you,” he said. “But if they become doctors who throw bombs, they will also be blown up by bombs.”
The heated exchange further deepened existing tensions between the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the BJP leadership, with both sides accusing the other of undermining national unity and constitutional principles.
Madani was selected as the ‘Person of the Year – 2023’
Maulana Mahmood Madani, the President of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (M), has been selected as the ‘person of the year – 2023’ by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre.
The independent research entity recently published the 14th annual issue [pdf] of ‘The Muslim 500: The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims’ wherein Maulana Mahmood Madani is listed as the ‘Person of the Year- 2023.’
Madani’s latest remarks are part of a recurring pattern in which he has taken strong and often contentious positions on national issues. Over the past few years, he has been at the forefront of debates on the Uniform Civil Code, alleged Islamophobia, religious freedom, and the rights of Islamic institutions.
Opposition to Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code
In January this year, when Uttarakhand became the first state in independent India to implement a Uniform Civil Code, Madani strongly opposed the law. Calling it a violation of the constitutional right to religious freedom, he compared it to an “assault on democracy.”
Madani argued that the law ignored the objections raised by Muslim minorities and failed to consider the guidance provided by the Law Commission of India, which had previously stated that a Uniform Civil Code was neither necessary nor desirable. According to him, the government imposed the UCC in a “dictatorial manner,” disregarding democratic processes and public consultation.
He insisted that Muslims would continue to adhere to their personal laws and Sharia, and that they would resist any attempt to dilute religious practices, though only “within the bounds of the law and Constitution.” Madani’s remarks sparked significant political debate, with critics accusing him of resisting reforms aimed at ensuring gender justice.
Call for legislation against ‘Islamophobia’
In June 2024, Madani and the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind demanded comprehensive legislation to address what they called rising Islamophobia in India. However, this appeal triggered controversy due to the organisation’s track record of legally defending individuals accused of terrorism.
OpIndia earlier published a report in 2022, which explain that since 2007, the Jamiat’s legal cell has provided legal support to nearly 700 terror-accused individuals, resulting in over 190 acquittals, many due to procedural lapses rather than confirmation of innocence. The organisation’s involvement in high-profile cases, such as the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts, the 2006 Malegaon blasts, and the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, raised questions about its intentions in proposing such a law.
Madani’s statement also accused the government and child rights bodies of targeting madrasas under the guise of regulation. He said that directives such as mandatory Surya Namaskar, Saraswati Puja, or recitation of Hindu prayers were unconstitutional and infringed upon Muslim religious freedom. Critics dismissed these allegations as exaggerated and argued that such claims were intended to create a false narrative of victimisation.
Jamiat also voiced objections to the UCC, demanded protection for Islamic institutions, and even raised questions on reservation policies, further intensifying debates around identity politics and religious autonomy.
Threat-like statements during UCC debate
Madani’s contentious statements on the UCC date back to May 2022, when the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind passed a resolution against the proposed national Uniform Civil Code during a two-day convention attended by thousands of Muslim organisations.
https://t.co/VyLNq6ao64
*🔴 Live*
*चौथा सेशन: 29 मई सुबह 8:45 से 1:00 बजे तक**📍#जमीअत* *उलमा-ए-हिंद की मजलिस-ए-मुंतजिमा का अधिवेशन #लाइव टेलीकास्ट उस्मान नगर (ईदगाह मैदान) देवबंद से।*
— Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (@JamiatUlama_in) May 29, 2022
The resolution warned that Muslims would “take all measures” against the UCC, though it insisted that these measures would remain “within constitutional limits.” The phrasing led to criticism that the organisation was indirectly issuing threats.
Madani added another layer of controversy 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 said that Muslims had become “strangers in their own country,” adding that they would compromise on everything except their faith.
During the same event, a Jamiat official, Maulana Niaz Ahmed Farooqui, warned that disputes like the Gyanvapi mosque issue could lead to “the creation of another Pakistan.” The statement was widely condemned for invoking a divisive and sensitive historical reference.
Demand for a new blasphemy law
Another controversy arose in August 2022, when Madani demanded exemplary punishment for former BJP MLA T Raja Singh over alleged derogatory comments about the Prophet Muhammad. He described the party’s internal action against Singh as inadequate and called for a new law to protect the dignity of religious figures.
Critics argued that creating such a law would endanger freedom of expression and could be misused. The demand also triggered concerns about the rise of blasphemy-related restrictions at a time when many countries were moving away from such legislation.
Support for the Waqf Act and opposition to reforms
In September 2022, Madani and the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind opposed a petition challenging the Waqf Act’s sweeping provisions. The organisation moved the Delhi High Court, defending the existing structure of Waqf administration and suggesting that any attempt to amend the law was part of a campaign to target Muslim community practices.
Maulana Mahmood Madani’s recent remarks on “jihad,” judicial decisions, and Vande Mataram have reignited long-standing debates around religious identity, constitutional rights, and political polarisation in India. While he insists that his comments stem from concern for minority rights and constitutional protections.
The intense reactions to his latest statements are not occurring in isolation. Over the past several years, Madani has repeatedly taken strong and controversial positions on issues ranging from the Uniform Civil Code to alleged Islamophobia, blasphemy laws, and Waqf regulations. Each of these episodes has contributed to wider political and societal divisions.