Madani Sparks Controversy with Comment “If there is Oppression, There will be Jihad”
NEW DELHI, Nov 29: A shocking comment by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Mahmood Madani sparked a controversy after declaring that “if there is oppression, there will be jihad,” a statement he made while accusing the judiciary of failing to protect constitutional rights of minorities.
His remarks have triggered intense political reactions from the BJP who accused him of inciting Muslims and challenging constitutional institutions. Madani alleged that recent court verdicts, including those on the Babri Masjid and triple talaq cases, suggested that the judiciary was functioning “under government pressure.” He claimed that “many such decisions” had emerged in recent years which “openly violated the rights of minorities guaranteed in the Constitution.”
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind is one of India’s oldest and most influential Islamic organisations, founded in 1919 by leading Deobandi scholars to represent Muslim social, religious, and political concerns. The organisation works on issues related to Muslim welfare, education, legal rights, and religious guidance, while also engaging with national debates on citizenship, minority rights, and secularism.
Referring to cases proceeding despite the Places of Worship Act, 1991, Madani said such developments highlighted constitutional deviations. “The Supreme Court is entitled to be called ‘Supreme’ only as long as the Constitution is protected there,” he said. “If this does not happen, then it does not deserve to be called supreme even in a non-remnant.”
Madani also assessed public sentiment regarding Muslims in India, stating that 10 percent of people are supportive, 30 percent are against them, while 60 percent remain silent. He urged Muslims to actively engage with this silent majority. “Explain your issues to them. If these 60 percent people turn against Muslims, then there will be a big danger in the country,” he warned.
Objecting to the way jihad is portrayed in public discourse, Madani accused the media and government of distorting a sacred concept. He criticised the usage of labels like “love jihad,” “spit jihad,” and “land jihad,” saying they misrepresented the true meaning. “Jihad was and will always remain holy,” he stressed, adding that religious texts mention jihad only “for the good and betterment of others.” Reiterating his contentious statement, he said, “If there is oppression, then there will be jihad.”
Madani clarified, however, that India’s secular democratic framework does not allow any violent interpretation. “Here Muslims show loyalty to the Constitution,” he said. He added that it is the government’s responsibility to safeguard citizens’ rights and that “if the government doesn’t do this, then the government is responsible.”
Madani also sparked debate with his remarks on Vande Mataram. “A dead community surrenders,” 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.”
Madani’s remarks drew a fierce response from BJP MLA Rameshwar Sharma, who accused him of inciting Muslims and challenging constitutional institutions. Sharma said “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 comments and initiate action.
Launching a strong attack, Sharma said Madani was “violating the Constitution” and “challenging the Supreme Court.” He warned him to “stay within limits.” He further alleged that people like Madani “produce terrorists, jihadists, rapists,” and support movements like “love jihad, land jihad, and thook jihad,” and then expect the Supreme Court to “serve them biryani.”
(Manas Dasgupta)
