Why Love for Muhammad and Mahadev Should Coexist Harmoniously

In recent weeks, a slogan reading “I Love Muhammad” surfaced on campuses in India, stirring significant debate and resulting in dozens of arrests. The slogan first appeared in connection with celebrations marking the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad, and its appearance particularly just before student elections at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi has reopened questions about the relationship between faith, identity and free expression. 

This moment invites deeper reflection: why does the declaration “I Love Muhammad” trigger controversy when it might simply express personal devotion? And, to take the question further: could the same person not also say “I Love Mahadev” a nod to the Hindu deity without conflict? The friction appears to stem from social, institutional and historical fault-lines, rather than any inherent contradiction in emotion itself. The phrase “I Love Muhammad” is not just a slogan, it becomes a signifier in a charged atmosphere. Posters and graffiti bearing the words were swiftly removed by university administration, reflecting how expressions of devotion are filtered through campus politics. 

Yet at the heart of the matter lies a longing many might share: to belong. To hold love for one tradition while living in another or alongside others. The question asked by one writer is indeed: “Why can’t ‘I Love Muhammad’ and ‘I Love Mahadev’ coexist?” The answer is rooted not in theology, but in how we socially frame devotion, how institutions respond, and how identity becomes contested. 

In a plural nation like India, where religious identities intertwine with politics, campuses become micro-arenas for broader societal tensions. A slogan can be read as unity or read as provocation depending on which lens you apply. The challenge is to find ways for personal devotion and public life to not only coexist but to enable mutual respect. If individuals could express love for Muhammad without fear, and love for Mahadev without envy, then the space where these expressions meet could become richer, not more divided.

Ultimately, this moment is less about a slogan on a wall, and more about how we negotiate being part of many traditions, multiple identities and shared futures. The way forward lies less in silencing devotion and more in allowing its peaceful coexistence.