On 5th June, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind urged the Union Government of India to introduce comprehensive legislation to address the so-called Islamophobia in the country. The statement came from the chief of JUH Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani. Notably, JUH has a history of defending terrorists and providing legal support to members of terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Considering the history of the organisation, it raises serious concerns about the true intentions behind such a proposed law and the potential dangers that it poses.
JUH has a notorious track record of defending individuals associated with numerous terrorist activities. They have provided legal aid to terrorists linked to organisations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Reports suggest that the organisation’s legal cell, which was established by its chief Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani in 2007, has taken up cases and enlisted lawyers to defend terror accused in the courts across the country, a stance that poses a serious threat to national security and social harmony.
In 2022, OpIndia published a report that explained how Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind has defended around 700 terror-accused individuals resulting acquittal of at least 192 since 2007. Most of the acquittals were due to technicalities, lack of evidence and poor police investigation rather than proof of innocence. High-profile cases, including the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts, the 2006 Malegaon blasts, the Aurangabad Arms case, and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, highlight Jamiat’s legal interventions on behalf of terrorists.
In a press release, JUH called for legislation to address the cases of so-called Islamophobia in the country. Furthermore, the organisation also claimed that there are attempts to “saffronise” the educational institutes.
The organisation claimed that BJP and NCPCR are running false propaganda against madrasas by targeting them under one pretext or another. JUH called for necessary measures for the protection and safeguarding of Islamic madrasas. However, the organisation threw the fact under the rug that there have been countless reports where children studying in madrasas are facing atrocities at the hands of maulanas running those madrasas.
Claiming there are attempts to saffronise the educational institutes, JUH said, “Every citizen of this country is free to uphold their religious practices and beliefs under the provisions of the constitution. Therefore, it is an infringement on religious freedom and a violation of the constitution when the government imposes mandatory directives on schoolchildren to conduct Surya Namaskar, Saraswati Puja, Hindu songs, shlokas, or wear tilak. Muslims and any reasonable Indian would find such mandates unacceptable.” There are very few schools that are run by Hindu organisations where students are asked to wear tilak. No one forced any Muslim, Christian or Sikh students to wear Tikak, and recite Shlokas to conduct Surya Namaskar. There are countless reports where Hindu students are ridiculed, criticised and punished for wearing religious symbols while students of other religions freely wear their respective symbols without any problem. The statement by JUH is a clear attempt to create a false narrative that Muslims are under threat in India.
Furthermore, JUH called the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) unfair. JUH said, “By Islamic principles, it also exhorted the community to firmly preserve Shari’ah and provide fairness for women in society. It is unacceptable to allow injustices against women in areas like inheritance and distribution.”
Interestingly, JUH asked for Muslim reservations and claimed that the demand was not based on religion. It also raised questions over why Hindus lose reservation benefits if they convert to Islam or Christianity.
JUH further warned that any attempt to repeat the Waqf Act would be seen as a plot to “jeopardise both the rights of the Muslim minority and the country’s well-being”. The statement was a clear threat to law and order situation by the organisation.
The demands made by JUH are not only baseless but also pose a threat as the organisation has a history of defending terror accused. By calling for legislation against so-called Islamophobia, JUH is attempting to create a false narrative of victimhood while diverting attention from its controversial actions. The organisation’s stance on issues like the Uniform Civil Code and alleged saffronisation of educational institutes is an evident effort to polarise society and undermine national unity. Such demands and statements by JUH should be viewed with caution, as they pose a serious threat to the security and social harmony of the country.
