Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Mahmood Madani sparked significant controversy during his address in Bhopal on Saturday, November 30, 2025, by redefining the Islamic concept of jihad and questioning the Supreme Court's adherence to constitutional principles.
Redefining Jihad: Sacred Concept vs Political Weapon
Speaking at the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind's national governing body meeting held at Barkatullah Education Campus in Bhopal, Madani strongly objected to what he called the distortion of Islamic terminology. The prominent Muslim leader asserted that jihad has been deliberately turned into an abusive term synonymous with violence and rioting in contemporary political discourse.
Madani elaborated that phrases like 'love jihad', 'land jihad', 'education jihad', and 'spit jihad' represent systematic attempts to insult Muslim religious freedom. He emphasized that whenever terrorist incidents occur globally, Islam and Muslims face unwarranted accusations and taunts under the jihad label.
"In Islam, jihad is a sacred religious obligation," Madani declared, explaining that the Quran uses the term in multiple contexts, all aimed at individual, societal, and human welfare, elevation, and dignity preservation.
Constitutional Loyalty and Government Responsibility
The Jamiat leader made a crucial distinction about jihad's applicability in India's context. He clarified that in a democratic, secular country like India where the concept of an Islamic state doesn't exist, any discussion about jihad in political terms is irrelevant.
Madani stressed that Indian Muslims are bound by constitutional loyalty, while the government bears responsibility for protecting citizens' rights. "If the government fails in this, it will be the government's responsibility, not ours," he stated, positioning the community as law-abiding citizens within the constitutional framework.
Supreme Court Under Scrutiny
In perhaps his most controversial remarks, Madani directly questioned the Supreme Court's credibility. He claimed that decisions in sensitive cases like Babri Masjid and Triple Talaq have created widespread public perception that courts are working under government pressure.
Madani specifically pointed to the Gyanvapi and Mathura cases being declared admissible while allegedly ignoring the Places of Worship Act as evidence of constitutional rights violations. "The Supreme Court deserves to be called Supreme only as long as it remains bound to the Constitution and respects the rule of law. If it does not do so, it has no moral right to be called Supreme," he asserted boldly.
BJP's Strong Condemnation
The Bharatiya Janata Party reacted swiftly and strongly to Madani's comments. Senior BJP leader and former Cabinet minister Narottam Mishra declared that India will no longer tolerate such a mindset.
Mishra expressed particular concern about Madani questioning both the courts and national symbols. "They are questioning the courts; they are questioning Vande Mataram. What kind of mindset is this?" the BJP leader countered, indicating the political storm the remarks have generated.
Broader Concerns About Muslim Community
Madani described the current national situation as extremely sensitive and worrisome, alleging systematic efforts to dominate certain sections while rendering others legally helpless and socially isolated. He listed economic boycott, bulldozer actions, mob lynching, and sabotage of Muslim waqf properties as methods being used against the community.
The Jamiat president also addressed the controversy around halal certification, describing it as a purely religious concept being systematically defamed. He explained that halal represents a comprehensive way of life encompassing lawful earnings, honesty in trade, and correct wealth usage rather than merely ritual slaughter practices.
Madani's extensive comments at the Bhopal meeting have ignited fresh debate about religious terminology, constitutional principles, and inter-community relations in India, with political reactions indicating the remarks will likely fuel ongoing political discussions about secularism and religious freedom.
