‘Haram for one, halal for another’: Jaleel questions IUML’s divided stance on lighting the lamp
A public function has reignited a debate within the Indian Union Muslim League regarding the lighting of traditional ceremonial lamps. While some leaders participate in the practice as a cultural gesture, others view it as inconsistent with Islamic beliefs, drawing criticism from political rivals.
Why it matters
The issue highlights the ongoing tension between religious orthodoxy and secular cultural practices within political organizations in a pluralistic society.
A public function attended by Minister for Industries P.K. Kunhalikutty and Minister for Local Self-Governments K.M. Shaji along with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders in Thiruvananthapuram on Thursday (July 9, 2026) has revived the Indian Union Muslim League’s (IUML) long-running debate over the lighting of the traditional ceremonial lamp. When Mr. Shaji lit the ‘nilavilakku’, Mr. Kunhalikutty refused to do so.
The contrasting positions drew criticism from former Muslim Youth League leader K.T. Jaleel, who questioned how two leaders of the same party and faith could have different approaches to the practice.
“Both Mr. Kunhalikutty and Mr. Shaji follow the same faith. But the lamp is haram for one and halal for the other. How is it possible?” he asked.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in