The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach.

Loay Al-Shareef, an Emirati peace activist and respected voice in the Arab reformist movement, recently issued a stark warning to American campuses and political leaders: the Muslim Brotherhood must be banned before its toxic ideology causes further harm.

His message is not one of political convenience or ideological vengeance. It is a cry rooted in personal experience, cultural insight, and a sincere concern for both the Arab world and the West.

Al-Shareef has visited more than 15 American universities, speaking alongside fellow Arab Muslim activists who once lived under the shadow of the very ideology they now confront. His mission is clear—to expose the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its military wing, Hamas, before more young minds are seduced by the movement’s deceptively noble slogans.

He is often asked: Why this relentless warning? His answer is powerful in its simplicity: “Because we know their evil better than anyone else on the planet.”

This isn’t abstract theory or secondhand knowledge. Many of these reformers were once indoctrinated with the Brotherhood’s ideas—raised on narratives of victimhood, infused with theological justifications for hatred, and programmed to see the world through a rigid binary of believers versus enemies. But some, like Al-Shareef, broke free. And in that awakening, they saw not just the lie—they saw the machinery behind it.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach. But in moments of global attention—especially during crises in Gaza or Jerusalem—it wears the mask of “resistance” and “liberation.” That’s when slogans like “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea” are weaponized. To the uninformed, they echo human rights and justice. To those who know the ideology’s roots, they are coded calls for extermination and destruction.

Al-Shareef’s perspective forces an uncomfortable but necessary re-examination. The West, particularly liberal institutions in the U.S., often romanticize political Islamists as representatives of “authentic” Muslim identity. Yet the reality is far more complex—and dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has long perfected the art of double-speak: peace in English, militancy in Arabic; democracy in the West, theocracy at home.

The tragedy is that many Western politicians and diplomats continue to give these preachers a pass. Whether out of ignorance, fear of being labeled “Islamophobic,” or naïve idealism, this tolerance is enabling the very ideologies that fuel radicalization, antisemitism, and violence.

Al-Shareef is not anti-Palestinian. He, like many in the Arab world, supports justice and dignity for Palestinians. But he draws a line between a genuine pursuit of peace and the manipulation of that cause by Islamist actors who have hijacked it for their own ideological war.

His call to ban the Muslim Brotherhood in America is not just about foreign policy. It’s about safeguarding the social fabric of democratic societies. It’s about recognizing antisemitism—not as a political position, but as a crime with deadly consequences. And it’s about listening to those who have walked through the fire and come out with scars and clarity.

The next time a “Free Palestine” protest escalates into violence, as many unfortunately have in recent months, remember this warning: the danger isn’t just spontaneous—it’s ideological, well-organized, and globally connected.

Loay Al-Shareef’s message to America is not anti-Muslim. It’s anti-extremist. It’s a call for nuance, courage, and truth in a time when too many prefer slogans to substance.

The West must listen to those who know the mask behind the movement. Before it’s too late.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah.

On August 15, 2019, a seemingly emotional piece appeared in a Turkish publication. Written by Ruwa Shah, the daughter of jailed Kashmiri separatist Altaf Ahmad Shah, the article lamented the “besieged” condition of Kashmir, portraying a picture of despair and victimhood. Shah, writing from Turkey, decried the “loss of childhood” among Kashmiri children—despite living thousands of miles away from the region.

While the article may appear at first glance to be a personal narrative, its deeper context and timing are far more consequential. The piece, and many others like it published in Turkish media, reflect an expanding ecosystem of information warfare aimed at maligning India’s global image, particularly in the Muslim world. The source and structure of this narrative appear increasingly tied to a broader project of political Islam, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Altaf Shah Connection: Terror and Propaganda

Ruwa Shah’s father, Altaf Ahmad Shah, was no ordinary man. He was a key operative in Kashmir’s separatist ecosystem and is currently facing charges in India related to terror financing. India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered a case in 2017 implicating him in illegally raising funds, including through hawala channels, to fuel street violence, destroy schools, and provoke unrest in the Kashmir Valley. His actions, far from the realm of peaceful protest, allegedly contributed to organized violence and efforts to destabilize the region.

Thus, Ruwa Shah’s presence in Turkey and her article in its media cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be seen in conjunction with the growing pattern of Turkish platforms becoming hubs for Pakistani-backed and separatist-driven disinformation campaigns.

A New Axis: Ankara and Islamabad’s Media Alliance

Under President Erdogan’s rule, Turkey has undergone a dramatic transformation—from a relatively secular, pro-Western democracy to a country increasingly under the sway of Islamist populism. Central to this transformation has been Erdogan’s use of media as a strategic weapon—both domestically and internationally.

Analysts have raised concerns that Erdogan’s government has gone beyond domestic control of press freedom and has now adopted a deliberate strategy of international ideological export. Turkish state-run media outlets like Anadolu Agency and TRT, which once hired Western journalists, are now seeing an influx of Pakistani nationals with strong ideological leanings.

Currently, nearly half of the copy-editing staff in Anadolu Agency comprises Pakistani nationals. Many of these journalists have known affiliations with hardline ideologies, and some have shown clear sympathies with separatist movements in South Asia. Turkish media, particularly these two flagship outlets, are now actively providing platforms to voices that echo the narratives of Islamabad and anti-India actors.

ISI’s Invisible Hand?

Foreign policy observers argue that the placement of Pakistani journalists in Turkish media is not merely a reflection of Ankara-Islamabad camaraderie—it may very well be an orchestrated move by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. The intent: to amplify Pakistani geopolitical interests, challenge Indian narratives, and use Turkish soft power as a megaphone for radical Islam.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah. It explains why separatists from Kashmir, like Ruwa Shah, are finding Turkish media an inviting space to propagate their agenda.

Erosion of Sufi Pluralism in Turkey

One of the most tragic consequences of this media radicalization is the cultural loss within Turkey itself. Historically rooted in Sufi traditions, Turkish Islam was celebrated for its pluralism and syncretism. However, with the increasing dominance of Pakistani-Deobandi interpretations of Islam—promoted by the new wave of Pakistani journalists and clerics—there is growing concern about an erosion of Turkey’s spiritual heritage.

This ideological shift is being fueled not only through newsrooms but also through Turkey’s expanding religious institutions. The Diyanet, Turkey’s powerful Directorate of Religious Affairs, has witnessed exponential growth in both influence and budget. It is actively promoting a curriculum increasingly aligned with political Islam.

One such example is Erdogan’s controversial move in 2020 to convert Heybeliada Sanatorium—originally a hospital on one of Istanbul’s Princes’ Islands—into a religious school under Diyanet’s control. This follows the pattern of converting key historical monuments like Hagia Sophia and Kariye Church into mosques, symbolic of Erdogan’s Islamization campaign.

Observers worry that Turkey’s religious education sector is now being weaponized to raise generations of youth loyal to a singular, rigid ideological framework—one that is uncritical, conformist, and detached from Turkey’s once-rich theological diversity.

Radicalization of the Marginalized

Erdogan’s strategy doesn’t target the elite. Instead, his focus is on Turkey’s marginalized and underprivileged communities. For academically weaker students who are unable to get into mainstream education systems, religious schools are increasingly becoming the only option. Many of these schools promote a curriculum that serves political interests rather than religious or moral development.

In the long term, this has the potential to create an entire generation susceptible to radical ideologies and blind allegiance to Erdogan’s leadership. The role of imported media ideologues—especially Pakistani journalists—in this radicalization project cannot be underestimated.

A Caution for Turkish Society

Ruwa Shah’s article may have been a drop in the ocean, but it is emblematic of a larger, more dangerous tide. Turkish media, under Erdogan, is being transformed into a global hub for political Islam. It is actively collaborating with Pakistan’s ideological machinery, offering space to separatists and radicals, while undermining secular, moderate narratives.

The Turkish people—once custodians of a rich, pluralistic Islamic tradition—must now reckon with the possibility that their society is being reengineered. If unchecked, the radicalization of Turkish media and religious institutions could lead to long-term domestic instability and international isolation.

As for the rest of the world, particularly nations grappling with terrorism and separatism, the emerging Ankara-Islamabad axis of ideological influence poses a new frontier in the battle against extremism. What appears on the editorial page may just be a soft echo of a harder, strategic plan being executed in real time.

On April 27, 2025, Hijab posted on X: “If any Indian Muslim sides with India on Kashmir, he betrays the ummah. If he desires Hindutva’s triumph over Muslims, he has fallen into disbelief. Whoever allies with them is of them. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:51).”

Indian Muslims Strike Back

The response from Indian Muslims to Hijab’s latest statement has been swift, sharp, and unapologetic, showcasing their deep-rooted commitment to India and their rejection of divisive, external narratives.

Zahack Tanvir, a counterextremism writer and founder of Milli Chronicle UK, cleverly turned Hijab’s logic on its head, pointing out the hypocrisy of his argument. Tanvir wrote, “How about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that gave bases to the US against Taliban during ‘war on terror’? Have they become disbelievers too? Is ‘whoever allies with them is of them’ applicable on Pak ISI? Then according to you, they are Kafir! So technically Indian Muslims aren’t allying with Pakistan on Kashmir! ”

Kashmiri writer and educationist Arshia Malik delivered a scathing rebuke, telling Hijab to mind his own business. “Hasn’t your ex-wife filled criminal charges against you for domestic abuse? Indian Muslims have enough problems with the dog whistler Zubair and the DJ activists like Sayema, Arfa, Rana and the Safvis and Naqvis. We don’t need your advocacy, oaf. India is a liberal democracy, it doesn’t give space to takfirism, something even the Kashmiris are learning post-2019,” she wrote.

Malik emphasized the diversity of Indian Muslims—atheist, agnostic, cultural, liberal, progressive, and more—all of whom coexist under India’s Constitution alongside the Hindu majority.

Famous debater Mohammed Shoaib didn’t hold back, responding with raw emotion: “M** ***** **** apni pakistani umma ke saath. As an Indian Muslim, I stand with my India and its elected Hindutva govt. F*** your ***.” His unfiltered anger reflects the sentiment of many Indian Muslims who feel insulted by Hijab’s attempt to dictate their loyalties.

Zaira Nizam echoed this sentiment with a succinct yet powerful statement: “Fck your Pakistani Ummah. I am Indian and I stand with my country that is Bharat.” Her words encapsulate the fierce national pride that runs through the Indian Muslim community.

Advocate Shoeb Siddiqi, General Secretary of All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz (AIPMM), challenged Hijab’s interpretation of the Quranic verse, arguing, “He’s doing takfir of 200 million Indian Muslims for allegiance to their nation. Also (5:51) speaks of alliances during war with hostile enemies. Kashmir was, is, and will be an integral part of India—cry harder. You have no business poking your dirty nose here.”

Muslim activist Zafar Nama took a more confrontational tone, writing, “Hey *****, Kashmir belongs to India. If I have to choose between Hindu Rashtra and ‘Muslim Brotherhood Ummah Chutiyapa’, I will choose Hindu Rashtra any day. And yes, Allah has guided me to be in support of India and Humanity.”

Kashmiri journalist and geopolitical expert Raja Muneeb didn’t mince words, calling Hijab a “despicable vermin” and accusing him of hypocrisy. “You used the same Ummah argument to bed displaced Palestinian women. Didn’t you, you shameless son of a *****!” Muneeb’s response highlights the personal disdain many feel toward Hijab’s moral posturing.

Afghanistan’s human rights activist Wazhma Sayel brought a broader perspective, invoking Islamic teachings to counter Hijab’s divisive rhetoric. Quoting Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:32—“Killing one innocent person is as if killing all of humanity”—she criticized Hijab for supporting forces that have shed innocent blood in Afghanistan. Sayel also referenced the Prophet Muhammad’s last sermon, emphasizing equality across races and condemning Hijab’s hypocrisy.

Policy analyst Amana Ansari underscored the agency of Indian Muslims, stating, “The people of Kashmir have their own chosen leaders. Indian Muslims know our faith teaches justice (Qur’an 4:135). We stand, we speak, we sacrifice—for our country, for our people, for truth. We have our voice. We don’t need foreign agents. Never did. Never will.”

Saif Siddiqi added, “Indian Muslims need no certificate from anyone. Kashmir is India’s pride, and we proudly stand with it. Supporting India doesn’t betray the Ummah—betraying India would betray our own identity. Stop dividing us with lies.”

Lawyer Aman Wadud delivered a particularly pointed critique, accusing Hijab of fueling hatred against Indian Muslims. Quoting Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:8 and 5:32, Wadud wrote, “People like you have done the greatest disservice to Islam. You are doing the greatest disservice to 200 million Indian Muslim citizens. Give up your Oxford degree! Delete your account! SIT DOWN!”

Mohammed Hijab’s Controversial Past

Hijab, a British-Egyptian YouTuber and self-proclaimed scholar with a significant online following, is no stranger to controversy. His history of incendiary remarks and actions has often placed him at the center of polarizing debates.

In September 2022, Hijab was widely criticized for his role in inciting violence against Hindus in Leicester, UK, following tensions sparked by an India-Pakistan cricket match. According to a report by The Tribune, he was seen leading a mob of masked Muslim men, mocking Hinduism, and encouraging violence against Hindus.

In a video that surfaced on social media, Hijab was heard saying, “If they (Hindus) believe in reincarnation, what a humiliation of them to be reincarnated into some pathetic, weak, cowardly people like that.” He further taunted, “Deep down, they know we got the truth. If you want respect, then, learn to respect,” while warning Hindus against protesting the violence.

Hijab’s radical views extend beyond anti-Hindu rhetoric. He has a documented history of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments. In 2021, the Community Security Trust (CST) identified him as an “influential Islamist Youtuber” involved in anti-Israeli demonstrations in London.

During one such protest, he was recorded threatening violence, stating, “If those dogs come close to us again, we will see it as an act of aggression and we will kill those dogs! We’ll put them down,” as reported by Firstpost. He also reportedly led marches where crowds chanted, “We will find some Jews, we want their blood,” further cementing his reputation as a serial provocateur.

What’s From Pahalgam

The backdrop to this controversy is the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives, mostly tourists, in one of the deadliest strikes in the region since 2019. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has taken over the probe, deploying multiple teams to investigate the massacre in Baisaran Valley.

Security forces have launched a massive crackdown, demolishing the homes of four identified terrorists and detaining hundreds of overground workers. The attack has heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, with India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and closing border crossings. Amidst this, Indian Muslims continue to stand united with their nation, rejecting external voices like Hijab’s that seek to sow discord.

In this moment of crisis, the voices of Indian Muslims ring loud and clear: their loyalty lies with India, and they will not be swayed by divisive rhetoric from abroad.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism.

The New York Times published a report titled “As Bangladesh Reinvents Itself, Islamist Hard-Liners See an Opening,” detailing the rise of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh during political changes. The report discusses how religious extremists are taking advantage after the removal of former leader Sheikh Hasina. 

It highlights incidents like bans on women’s soccer and public harassment of women who do not follow conservative dress codes. 

There have been rallies demanding the death penalty for actions seen as blasphemy. The report notes that some Islamist groups, including previously banned ones, are pushing for stricter religious rules in the government. 

Officials are working on a new constitution that might change secularism to pluralism. This shift is causing concern over weakening democratic values and increasing risks for women and minorities.

Bangladesh used to be known for its secular roots and cultural diversity, but in recent years, extremist ideas have been resurfacing. Although this isn’t an entirely new foundation, it has become more noticeable and concerning since 5^th of August 2024.

Extremists are attacking secular bloggers and targeting women’s sports and cultural events. Their goal is to impose strict religious views or a political caliphate on a society that values diversity. This rise in extremist actions is worrying because it threatens freedoms, especially those of women and minorities, and poses a danger to the country’s democratic setup. 

A particularly troubling aspect is the attack on women’s rights to participate in public life. For example, some women’s football matches had to be cancelled because of threats from extremist groups. This shows how these groups are trying to take over spaces that were once empowering for women. Sports provide young women with opportunities to move up socially and gain international recognition, but these are now under threat. 

Such actions not only limit their dreams but also send a negative message about the shrinking space for women in public and professional life. It reflects a broader aim to suppress women’s rights under the guise of religious morality, harming the progress made in gender equality over the years.

Lifting bans on Islamist political parties like Jamat-e-Islami and freeing extremists like Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani known as the Anwar Al Awlaki of Bangladesh, give these groups more confidence. While the interim government might claim these actions are part of a broader peace strategy, they risk legitimizing extremist ideas and giving them a platform to grow. 

Inadequate systems to monitor released extremists make the situation worse, providing spaces for radical elements to regroup and plan for something like the meticulously planned October 7^th Attack orchestrated by Hamas. 

Meanwhile, a banned organization like Notorious Hizbut Tahrir openly propagated their influence and participation in Anti-Quota protest which for them was a tactical Jihad to oust the exiled Government and get a step ahead for their future plan of implementing a Caliphate. 

This political leniency by Interim Government weakens public trust in governance and helps extremist narratives spread, they have made few arrests while the extremist leaders are free and that questions if arresting the activists while ignoring the leadership is a soft ploy to leverage a tactical narrative. 

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism. Attacks on Sufi shrines and other minority religious sites highlight an increase in intolerance. These aren’t isolated events but part of a plan to make all of Bangladeshi society conform to strict ideological rules. 

Targeting cultural figures, authors, and artists underlines this trend, aiming to silence voices of dissent and alternative perspectives. Such actions threaten Bangladesh’s rich culture, traditionally a mix of diverse influences. We must also consider socio-economic factors driving this phenomenon.

Poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education create conditions where extremist views can take root. Young people, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, often join these movements seeking a sense of identity, purpose, or community. 

Extremist groups exploit these vulnerabilities using targeted propaganda and recruitment strategies, often through social media. Addressing these foundational issues requires comprehensive policies that promote inclusive development and foster social unity. 

Political Researcher and former Pentagon Official Michael Rubin, in a US Congressional briefing highlighted the growing concern of Radicalization in Bangladesh and opinionated an article ‘Is Bangladesh the Next Afghanistan’. 

Rubin is worried about how Noble Laurate Yunus is leading because it seems less tolerant than people expected. This is particularly true about how the government handles freedom of the press and different political views. 

Yunus is famous around the world for his work in microfinance, which helps poor people with small loans. He took charge of the interim government after Sheikh Hasina was removed from power. 

At first, many welcomed Yunus because they thought he would be different from Hasina, who was seen as too controlling. But Rubin thinks Yunus’s government is letting strict Islamist groups have too much power and is stopping people from speaking freely, which could hurt democracy. 

Rubin is especially concerned about the freedom of the press under Yunus’s rule. Some journalists, like Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed, have reportedly been brutally jailed on vague and ambiguous murder charges, raising fears about free speech in Bangladesh.

Over 1,000 journalists seen as “too secular” have reportedly been fired, showing a lack of tolerance for different opinions. Rubin also mentions problems faced by Julfikar Ali Manik, who reports on Islamist groups, and former Member of Parliament Fazle Karim Chowdhury, who works to protect minority rights. 

These issues suggest that Yunus’s temporary government might not be supporting the diversity and human rights that are important for democracy.

Increasingly, people are showing public support for Hamas, which is a growing concern. This support is visible in rallies and in the way some individuals dress to symbolize the group. 

Bangladesh, for many years, has had a clear stance against Israel. It has consistently supported Palestine through diplomatic efforts and has officially recognized only the Fatah-led government based in the West Bank. However, there is a noticeable rise in grassroots support for Hamas, especially in the wake of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. 

In this situation, extremists have spoken out against American interests in Bangladesh. Recently, some Islamists verbally called for aggressive protests in the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka. Along with Anti-India rhetoric, hatred for Trump’s America and Israel are seen. 

These tensions are fuelled by foreign policy support for Israel. The Interim Government was supposed to carry forward a Peaceful transition towards Democratic Election, while the reality looks, they have political interests to gain in the name of ‘reform’. 

Serving the interests, they are currently capitalizing on Islamists for majority support while being harsh and harsher on Secularists, Awami league activists, minorities and anyone associated with the 1971 Liberation war as tweeted by Lemkin Institute of Genocidal Prevention with multiple red flags. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.