A viral video of Muslim cleric Maulana Jarjis Ansari claiming that Lord Krishna followed Islam and offered namaz five times daily has triggered protests and demands for his arrest.
The footage is said to have been recorded during a religious address in Jharkhand on June 23. It gained wider attention on social media on Thursday as Hindu organisations accused Ansari of deliberately distorting scripture and insulting religious beliefs.
Ansari is heard referring to Chapter Six, Verse 10 of the Bhagavad Gita while making his assertion. He tells the gathering that Krishna prayed five times a day and suggests that the verse supports his interpretation of Islamic prayer.
The verse cited by Ansari, however, deals with the discipline of meditation. Its widely accepted translations ask a yogi to remain in solitude, control the mind and body, abandon desires and concentrate continuously on the spiritual self. It contains no reference to Islam, namaz or prayers performed five times daily.
The cleric also claims in the video that Hindus would develop affection for Islam if they studied their own religious texts. He describes Islam as a universal religion rather than a faith belonging exclusively to Muslims and says its principles were presented by Lord Ram and Lord Krishna.
His remarks drew criticism from religious groups that argued that comparisons between traditions should not be based on interpretations that contradict the established meaning of sacred texts. Protesters called for legal action, saying public speeches touching on sensitive religious issues could disturb communal harmony.
There was no independently verified information by Thursday morning about a police complaint, first information report or formal investigation linked specifically to the footage. Ansari had also not issued a publicly available clarification addressing the criticism or explaining the context of the speech.
The controversy has emerged while religious and legal attention remains focused on the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura. Hindu plaintiffs maintain that the mosque adjoining the Krishna Janmasthan temple complex stands on land associated with the deity’s birthplace. The mosque committee and other Muslim parties have contested those claims and challenged the maintainability of the suits.
Multiple cases connected to the dispute are being heard in the courts. Hindu petitioners have sought possession of the contested premises, removal of the mosque and restoration of what they describe as the original temple site. Muslim parties have relied on existing agreements, property records and legal protections governing places of worship.
A special Lok Adalat proceeding was held in Mathura this month as part of an effort to explore an amicable settlement. Representatives of the Hindu plaintiffs attended and proposed relocating the Shahi Idgah mosque, but the Muslim side did not participate in the session. The absence of both parties from the negotiating table prevented substantive conciliation.
The Vishva Hindu Parishad has meanwhile distanced itself from calls by some religious figures for a campaign resembling the mobilisation associated with earlier temple movements. The organisation has urged supporters to respect the judicial process while the Mathura cases remain before the courts.
Against that backdrop, Ansari’s comments have generated sharper reactions than they might have attracted as an isolated theological argument. Religious claims circulated through short video clips can spread rapidly without the full context of a speech, increasing the risk of inflammatory interpretations and organised online outrage.
The cleric has faced controversy over earlier speeches as well. A video circulated in 2022 in which he made statements about marital relations that were condemned by women’s rights advocates and religious commentators. He was also sentenced by a Varanasi fast-track court in September 2022 to 10 years’ imprisonment in a rape and blackmail case arising from a complaint registered in 2015.
The present controversy centres not on comparative religious discussion itself but on Ansari’s presentation of a disputed interpretation as scriptural fact. Hindu groups have argued that dialogue between faiths requires accurate representation of beliefs and texts, particularly when speeches are delivered before large gatherings and distributed online.
