A major political and religious controversy has erupted over Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind chief Maulana Mahmood Madani’s recent remarks on the Supreme Court and the term “jihad.” The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has strongly criticised the Islamic scholar, accusing him of provoking and misleading Muslim youth.
VHP spokesperson Vinod Bansal alleged that Madani’s statements portray all Muslims as victims and “jihadis,” while labeling non-Muslims as “dead communities.” He questioned whether freedom fighters and soldiers should also be called the same.
Bansal also claimed that Madani challenged the Supreme Court by saying the court must prove its “supremacy” through its actions. “Is he going to certify the Supreme Court?” the VHP spokesperson asked, calling it the “height of jihad.”
He further alleged that Madani’s narrative encourages extremist tendencies among Muslim youth and demanded strict action. Bansal said the Muslim community must decide whether such “provocative leadership” is acceptable.
What Sparked the Controversy?
The uproar began after Madani’s speech in Bhopal, where he objected to the negative interpretation of the word “jihad.” He argued that enemies of Islam have turned a sacred concept into something associated with violence. He also questioned the use of terms like “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Education Jihad,” and “Thook Jihad.”
Speaking at the organisation’s National Governing Body meeting in Bhopal, he said certain political and media narratives have turned a foundational Islamic concept into “an abuse.”
Madani added that “wherever oppression exists, jihad will exist,” a remark that has since fueled political backlash.
He also targeted recent court rulings, suggesting that judicial decisions in cases like the Babri Masjid title dispute and the ban on instant triple talaq indicate that the judiciary may be functioning under government pressure. “We have several instances before us that have raised questions on the character of courts,” he said. “The Supreme Court is eligible to be called ‘supreme’ only when it follows the Constitution. If it doesn’t do that, it doesn’t deserve to be called ‘Supreme’.”
