UP court verdict on conversion: JIH chief questions who can force someone to change religion
text_fields
Concern has been expressed by Syed Sadatullah Hussaini, the President of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH), regarding the recent ruling by an NIA-ATS court that found Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui, Maulana Umar Gautam, and fourteen other individuals guilty of alleged involvement in cases of illegal conversion.
The president of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind gave a statement to the media on Thursday, expressing his deep dismay and concern at the ruling.
“We strongly differ with the court’s assessment regarding the levelling of such grave charges. In a democratic country like India, who can force someone to change his religion? Islam does not allow it at all. Every individual has the right to choose, practice, and propagate the religion of his/her choice, and this right is enshrined in our Constitution,” the statement read, Muslim Mirror reported.
In response to the arrests of Maulana Siddiqui and Maulana Gautam, the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind charged that some media sources had sensationalised the story and instilled fear in the population.
“The manner in which Maulana Siddiqui and Maulana Gautam were arrested and implicated coupled with the sensationalized reactions of certain media outlets, showed that the entire exercise was meant to exploit public sentiments by creating a charged atmosphere of fear, intimidation, and hatred for gaining political mileage. This case sets a dangerous precedent, casting a shadow over the fundamental right to practice and propagate the religion of one’s choice. Creating a communal and emotionally charged atmosphere to divert attention from the real public issues is highly regrettable,” the statement read.
According to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, it is a fundamental right protected by the Indian Constitution, and any violation of the same poses a threat to democracy.
“We urge organizations and political parties to raise their voices against such injustice. We hope the case can be escalated to higher courts to seek redressal on the above conviction. The case is related to fundamental rights, personal liberty, and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Any violation of these rights and liberties is an endorsement of majoritarianism and authoritarianism and a threat to democracy and the rule of constitutional law,” the statement read.