‘Haram for one, halal for another’: Jaleel questions IUML’s divided stance on lighting the lamp
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
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. At the function, Mr. Kunhalikutty was seen passing the hand lamp to other dignitaries on the dais, including BJP leader V. Muraleedharan and BJP’s Corporation Mayor V.V. Rajesh, without lighting the lamp himself. Mr. Shaji, however, participated in the ceremony, triggering renewed discussion over the IUML’s evolving position on the practice. Contentious issue Lighting the ceremonial lamp has remained a contentious issue within the IUML. While one section considers the practice to be rooted in Hindu religious tradition and therefore inconsistent with Islamic beliefs, another argues that it is a cultural custom in a plural society without religious implications. The controversy had resurfaced recently after Fathima Thahiliya, the IUML’s first woman MLA, lit the lamp at a public function.
The Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, the largest organisation of traditional Sunni Muslim clerics in Kerala, criticised the act, saying it was against Islamic teachings. Several Muslim leaders, however, defended the practice, arguing that it was a ceremonial act rather than a religious one. A broader shift Shaji’s decision to light the lamp in the presence of Mr. Kunhalikutty is being viewed in political circles as part of a broader shift among a section of IUML leaders seeking to project a more secular and inclusive public image. The issue has exposed a generational divide within the party. In 2015, then Education Minister P.K. Abdu Rabb had refused to light the ceremonial lamp, saying it was the party’s position that IUML Ministers should not do so.
Senior leader E.T. Mohammed Basheer had also supported that view. However, leaders such as M.K. Muneer and Mr. Shaji had maintained that the IUML had no official position on the matter and that the decision should be left to individuals. Jaleel also cited former Samastha president Syed Imbichikoya Thangal Azhari’s view that lighting a lamp was permissible for Muslims if it was not done as an act of worship. “I hold the same opinion and light the lamp at public functions,” he said.
The BriefWire