Teachers of Darul Uloom, Deoband, the second largest Islamic seminary of the world after Al-Azhar, Cairo, are found involved more in raking up controversy and instigating Muslims for violence than counselling them to work for peace.
The most recent example being when one of the senior teachers of Darul Uloom and chief of Jamiat Ulama e Hind (JUH) Mahmood faction leader Mahmood Madani courted controversy not only by making irresponsible statements but also made a veiled threat to a section of people. Mahmood Madani also targeted the Supreme Court of India on its various judgments.
Jamiat Ulama e Hind : A Tale of Two Madanis & Endless Justifications
The leader of the other faction of JUH Arshad Madani is in no way lesser mortal than his nephew who gave a clean chit to Al Farah University in Haryana from where over 3000 kgs of explosives were recovered and a terror module was busted with the arrest of a few terror accused. The senior Madani also took up the matter of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar University’s founder Azam Khan who was jailed for corruption, land grab and many other offences.
Interestingly Jauhar died in London and chose to be buried in the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex, Jerusalem instead of seeking a resting place in his own country i.e. India .
These JUH leaders make unsubstantiated claims but when confronted, they start playing victim card. To begin with, Maulana Arshad Madani and other JUH leaders frequently claim that a historical understanding, especially in recent discussions surrounding the UCC, was reached upon between JUH and the Congress and often name of J L Nehru is taken attributing them that they agreed not to interfere in Muslim Personal Law (Sharia law) in return of the JUH’s support for a united independent India. This is an absolute lie.
Victimhood Politics & False Historical Claims
A per Ishtiaq Ahmed’s book Jinnah: His Successes, Failures and Role in History, this pledge was made on October 28, 1931, without any reference which reads, “The specific mention of personal laws became the basis of the alliance between the Indian National Congress and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on the future of India as a united country.” But a Pakistan resolution by the Muslim League was passed in 1939. How come JUH pre-empted that Muslim League is going to demand a separate nation for Muslims. Now, the question arises if condition imposed by JUH that Sharia Law must be protected, did ‘the Congress take help of Maulana Azad to persuade JUH to desert Muslim League and join the Congress, ‘unconditionally’, as per Anthony Read & David Fisher’s book The Proudest Day, “Azad managed to persuade the powerful Jamiat-ul-Ulama to desert the League and join Congress, ‘Unconditionally.” The term ‘unconditionally’ was purportedly used to placate Hindus.
In a constitutional democracy, no one, not even the Prime Minister of the country can make any personal pledge that defies or is outside the laid down provisions of the Constitution that was adopted by Independent India on January 26, 1950. Actually, a complete lie is being spread by JUH leaders and they don’t have anything to substantiate their arguments. Moreover, if any pledge was made by the Congress to JUH for supporting United India, the responsibility of JUH was to work with Muslims so they were not swayed away by Muslim League for partition but JUH miserable failed or it didn’t even try? And if any deal is broken, the demand to redeem what was promised for the success of the deal is not only unethical, immoral, greedy but also dangerous.
JUH’s Roots in Waliullah’s Ideology
It is no more a secret that JUH was established in 1919 with the inspirations from the teaching of Shah Waliullah Dehalvi who had written a letter to Afghan plunderer Ahmed Shah Abdali to attack India. The Mughal Empire that was weakening after the death of Aurangzeb, the control over different regions became decentralized with Hindu rulers gaining more power. Waliullah believed Muslims were in a pitiable condition and wrote to Abdali to invade India as a religious and political necessity to restore Muslim supremacy in India. The Third Battle of Panipat happened in 1761. The intention was to replace the declining Mughal Empire with another Islamic empire so the Sharia Law continues. This is exactly what JUH seems to have entered into a deal with the Congress in 1931.
The double face of the organisation and its leader is often exposed by their own deeds and then they start playing victimhood card which is given cover fire by political parties thriving on appeasement politics. In 2009, Mahmood Madani took on President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf by abhorring his remarks about the alienation of Indian Muslims and his unsolicited advice. He asserted that Indian Muslims are capable of solving their problems without outside interference. The same Mahmood Madani wants Hindus to leave India by repeating the same clichéd fake argument that they rejected Pakistan and chose India, when he addressed a gathering in May 2022 at Deoband, “This is our country… Our religion is certainly different, we dress differently, we have different customs, we have different eating habits, if you [Hindus] cannot tolerate our religion, you can go somewhere else.”
His falsehood that Muslims chose to stay back in India stands exposed by the statement made by Sardar Patel that how Muslims had helped create Pakistan. Patel’s speech in Kolkata, 1948, bears testament to the fact when he had said, “Most of the Muslims who have stayed back in Hindustan, helped in creating Pakistan. Now, I don’t understand what has changed in one night that they are asking us not to doubt their loyalty.”
JUH: Contradictions and Double Standards
Mahmood Madani is now talking about Jihad and trying to sugarcoat it, questioning the decision of courts including verdicts on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri dispute, Triple Talaq and surveys orders by various courts on repurposed Hindu Temple like Mathura, Kaashi, Sambhal and Dhar etc. These remarks show the real face of these leaders that if anything doesn’t suit them, they won’t accept them. But Mehmood Madani was exposed by Bihar governor Arif Mohammad Khan when he read out meaning of Jihad from the curriculum of Darul Uloom, Deoband which, as per Khan, says, “Jihad as per Sharia is to invite people towards Deen e Haq [Islam] and wage a war against those who refuse to accept it.”
The elder Madani is even more despising who openly supported institutions like Al Falah from where more than 3000 kgs of explosives were recovered and doctors from the university were arrested on terror charges. One of them blew himself off near Red Fort killing 13 people injuring almost double the number. Arshad Madanai’s faction has a legal cell that takes up cases of even convicted terrorists by various courts. But what is amusing is that he swears by constitution and secularism but in the same breadth he says, “We do not accept any law against Sharia. Muslims can compromise on everything, but not with Sharia.” This utterance was made by Arshad Madani on February 7, 2024 in the context of Uniform Civil Code.
Interestingly, JUH under Arshad Madani who is also part of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) campaigned against The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and asked Muslims to teach a lesson to Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu. The campaign was named as Aain Bachao Andolan (Save Constitution Convention) for protecting lands occupied illegally in the name of Waqf [religion] in a secular democracy.
Contradiction: Constitution vs Sharia
In a secular country, JUD leaders want separate provisions for Muslims. They want to be governed by Sharia Law and want only Hindus to carry the burden of secularism. They forced the Rajiv Gandhi government to overturn the Supreme Court decision on Shah Bano case. In June 2023, Arshad Madani made a distasteful comment that women become old by the age of 45-50, while men remain young until 80 to justify polygamy. In August 2021, the JUH advocated separate educational institutions for girls and Arshad Madani stated that even non-Muslims should avoid co-education to “keep their daughters away from immorality and misbehaviour”. They want Muslim girls to wear Hijab defying the dress code of schools and government.
JUH leaders claim to have Supported Secular Constitution but are fighting for Sharia Law. The organisation passed resolutions against terrorism but pursuing cases of terror accused and convicts in various courts clearly telling that they don’t walk the talk. They have always denied Taliban taking any inspiration from Deoband but Foreign Minister of Afghanistan Amir Khan Muttaqi chose to visit Deoband during his stay in India.
JUH filed petitions in various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India against the implementation of the UCC in states like Uttarakhand, seeking to uphold the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. But he conveniently ignored Article 44 of the Constitution which is part of Directive Principles of State Policy that talks about Uniform Civil Code. They want 1937’s Sharia law and not 1950’s Constitution of India. People of India know them but now Muslims have to decide if such people represent them.
