Dr. Alajmi began his post by recalling some of the darkest episodes in recent Islamic history: “Iran attacked peaceful worshippers in the Grand Mosque in Makkah more than once.” He referenced the 1987 tragedy during Hajj when Iranian pilgrims staged a violent protest, leading to hundreds of deaths.

“In 1987, it attempted to occupy the Grand Masjid,” he wrote, a reference to the violent confrontation in which Saudi security forces and foreign pilgrims perished. “In 1989,” he continued, “it killed many and smuggled weapons and explosives with the intention of ruining the Masjid and terrorizing pilgrims.”

Dr. Alajmi then traced what he called Iran’s “trail of terrorism” throughout the region, beginning with its actions in the Gulf. “Iran bombed Kuwait several times, practised terrorism, hijacked aeroplanes, and attempted to assassinate its emir in the 1980s,” he wrote. He further highlighted Iran’s enduring occupation of three Emirati islands, calling attention to the UAE’s long-standing territorial dispute with Tehran over Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs.

In one of his more poignant statements, he turned to the region of Ahwaz, a majority-Arab area in Iran. “Iran occupied Ahwaz—13 times the area of Palestine—killed its people, tortured them, and plundered their wealth.” He emphasized that this forgotten region suffers systematic oppression despite being rich in oil and resources. “Its people are Arab Muslims, yet they remain forgotten,” he implied.

Turning to Syria, Dr. Alajmi condemned Iran’s military presence and support for Bashar al-Assad: “Iran occupied much of Syria, killed hundreds of thousands, tortured them in various ways, and displaced millions.” In Yemen, he declared, “Iran occupied Sana’a, displaced its people, and killed many Yemenis,” referring to Tehran’s backing of the Houthi militia.

On Iraq, he was equally harsh: “Iran occupied Iraq, displacing millions of its people, killing hundreds of thousands, and spreading corruption throughout all parts of Iraq.” He accused Iranian influence of hollowing out Iraqi state institutions, eroding sovereignty, and fueling sectarian divisions.

Dr. Alajmi did not stop there. “It caused murder in Lebanon,” he said, citing Tehran’s support of Hezbollah and its political interference. He also referenced Bahrain, saying Iran “moved its proxies… where they killed, burned, and destroyed until the state almost collapsed.”

All of this, he warned, cannot be dismissed as isolated events. “Much, much more corruption was spread by successive Iranian governments,” he wrote. For him, the consistent pattern of aggression points to a broader agenda of domination under the guise of revolution and resistance.

In a striking and controversial turn, Dr. Alajmi drew a direct comparison between Iran and Israel. “In contrast, the Zionists occupied Palestine,” he wrote. “Which of the two is more corrupt and corrupting in our Islamic and Arab world? And which of the two is more evil?”

By posing this comparison, he challenged a long-standing dogma in Arab political discourse—that Israel alone is the region’s primary source of suffering. His words reflect a growing Gulf sentiment that questions Iran’s ideological hypocrisy: using the Palestinian cause as a cover while destabilizing Arab states and targeting Sunni populations.

His post has resonated widely, especially among Gulf citizens who have lived through decades of Iranian-backed unrest. In an age of shifting alliances and increasing calls for regional self-determination, Dr. Alajmi’s message is a call for clarity: “We must confront the real source of destruction in our region—not just the familiar enemy, but the one cloaked in religious slogans and revolutionary slogans.”

Shaykh Dr. Daghash ibn Shabib Al-Ajmy is a prominent Salafi scholar from Kuwait. He holds a PhD in Usool ud-Deen from Kuwait University and has served as an imam, khateeb, and professor since 1999. He studied under renowned scholars such as Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, and Shaykh Rabee’ al-Madkhali. Dr. Al-Ajmy has authored and verified several respected Islamic works, and holds ijazaat in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim from over ten senior scholars.

While the discussion was initially intended to focus on another topic, Patel chose to address the question head-on. “It’s a sensitive subject,” he acknowledged, “but I want to frankly put forward my view. Because of recent events and the buzz on social media, this discussion has become necessary.”

Patel’s response was not politically driven, but deeply rooted in Islamic ethics and Sharia principles. His critique centered not on the people of Pakistan, but on what he described as a dangerous contradiction: the open and tolerated presence of armed terror groups within the country’s borders.

“Think for yourself — Pakistan is a country where terror groups openly exist,” he said. “It may not be officially legal, but their existence is not hidden.”

From a Sharia perspective, Patel reminded listeners that such realities are alarming. Islamic scholars across the world have issued fatwas—legal verdicts—categorically opposing the existence of independent armed militias operating outside the state’s control. “Even if what these groups do is set aside for a moment,” he said, “their very existence is a problem.”

Zaid Patel emphasized that such groups, while claiming to operate in the name of Islam, have in fact brought grave damage to the image of the religion globally. “These groups carry out violence, including attacks on civilians, and claim it as jihad. But their actions have no basis in the Quran or the Sunnah,” he noted.

In a powerful and emotional moment, Patel turned the spotlight on the consequences faced by Indian Muslims.

“We Indian Muslims suffer because of this exported extremism. The extremism increasing in India also has roots in this external influence,” he said.

According to Patel, these groups have not only harmed Muslims in Pakistan but have also created ripple effects across the region. Their activities have given fuel to anti-Muslim narratives, sowing suspicion and hostility toward peace-loving Muslims, especially in India.

“Have you ever seen a terror group condemn an attack, saying it was wrong?” Patel asked. “Instead, even if they didn’t do it, they behave as if they want credit for it. That’s the dangerous mentality that is spreading in public spaces.”

This dual failure—both moral and political—has led to what he calls “a double policy.” On paper, Pakistan adheres to international treaties and obligations. But in practice, these groups operate with shocking impunity. “There’s ample proof that they operate with legal and logistical freedom,” Patel said. “When the whole world knows about them, how can we pretend otherwise?”

His message was particularly resonant for Indian Muslims, who often find themselves caught in the crossfire—both metaphorically and socially. “We bear the consequences both internally and externally,” he lamented. “Terrorism is being used as a proxy war in the name of Islam, and all of us suffer because of it.”

Ending his statement with clarity and compassion, Zaid Patel reiterated that Islam offers no room for such armed militancy. “A Muslim country should not allow independent armed groups to exist. There is no justification for it in the Quran or Hadith. Their actions harm Islam and Muslims worldwide.”

In an age of noise and half-truths, Patel’s forthright response stood out—not just for its honesty, but for its deep concern for the well-being of Indian Muslims and the sanctity of Islamic teachings. It was less a political answer and more a moral plea: for accountability, for clarity, and above all, for peace.

In a widely circulated video, Shaykh Rahmani warns the Muslim youth not to fall victim to what he calls a “foreign conspiracy” aimed at sowing religious confusion. Speaking in Urdu with restrained passion, he said, “The propaganda is coming from across the border — in English — camouflaged under Islamic scholarship to mislead Indian Muslims.”

Shaykh Rahmani’s comments come amid a social media campaign reportedly originating from Pakistan, which discourages Muslims in India from joining the armed forces, branding it un-Islamic.

“They could not establish Shariah in their own land,” he said, referring to Pakistan, “so now they are targeting Indian Muslims, creating doubt over something that has no basis in Islamic creed.”

The senior Salafi scholar made it clear that enlisting in the Indian Army is a personal and civic decision, not a theological dilemma. “This is not an issue of Islam versus Kufr. Joining the army does not turn one into a disbeliever,” he asserted. “It is about protecting the nation, just as any other country’s military defends its own borders.”

Shaykh Rahmani emphasized that the Indian Army is a national institution and not a religious one, and that its role should not be misrepresented through sectarian lenses. “There is a security matter between two countries — not between two faiths. Don’t confuse patriotism with blasphemy,” he cautioned.

This video has gained traction amid ongoing discussions about the role of Muslims in India’s armed forces. Many within the community serve with distinction in the military, and the government has repeatedly highlighted its secular credentials in national institutions.

However, voices that attempt to religiously polarize such national duties, whether domestic or foreign, raise concerns about the manipulation of faith for political or ideological gain.

Security analysts and interfaith scholars have also weighed in, warning that conflating national duty with religious betrayal is not only misleading but potentially destabilizing. “This narrative isn’t just misguided — it’s dangerous,” said one Delhi-based interfaith researcher. “It isolates Indian Muslims from civic responsibility and plays straight into divisive hands.”

The Abul Kalam Azad Islamic Awakening Centre, under Shaykh Rahmani’s leadership, has been vocal in countering extremism and religious misinterpretation, especially among urban Muslim youth. His recent statements are seen as part of a broader effort to reclaim religious narratives from geopolitical agendas.

As India navigates complex domestic and regional dynamics, scholars like Shaykh Rahmani are emerging as vital voices defending both Islamic integrity and national unity.

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

History is often told in a way that glorifies certain figures while ignoring their flaws. One such figure is Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who is sometimes passionately defended by sections of the Muslim community.

However, even Muslim scholars and historians have criticized him for his harsh policies, which played a significant role in the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Aurangzeb’s Path to Power: A Brutal Struggle

Aurangzeb’s rise to the throne was marked by bloodshed. He killed his own brother, Dara Shikoh, and imprisoned his father, Shah Jahan, to take power.

This kind of ruthless behavior wasn’t unique to Aurangzeb—many Mughal and Ottoman rulers followed the “Takht Ya Taboot” (Throne or Coffin) philosophy, where they eliminated even their own family members to secure their rule.

However, from an Islamic perspective, this raises serious ethical concerns, as justice and righteousness are central to Islamic teachings.

The Sharifs of Mecca Rejected Aurangzeb’s Rule

After overthrowing Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb sought religious legitimacy from the Sharifs of Mecca, who were descendants of the Prophet Muhammad and custodians of Islam’s holiest sites.

However, they refused to endorse him, citing Islamic principles that prohibit unjustly overthrowing a rightful ruler. This rejection suggests that even in his time, Aurangzeb’s rule was seen as problematic by respected Islamic authorities.

Muslim Scholars Criticized Aurangzeb’s Policies

Many well-known Muslim scholars and historians have pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid and intolerant approach weakened the Mughal Empire rather than strengthening Islam.

Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703–1762), a prominent Islamic scholar admired Aurangzeb for his piety and commitment to Islamic governance but criticized his excessive military campaigns, neglect of administration, and failure to train his successors. He also pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid policies, including alienation of Hindus and Rajputs, weakened the empire. Shah Waliullah believed that while Aurangzeb upheld religious values, his lack of political flexibility and strategic governance contributed to the Mughal Empire’s decline after his death.

Syed Murtaza Husain (Student of Shibli Nomani) In Tarikh-e-Aurangzeb, he argued that Aurangzeb’s oppressive policies did more harm than good. His intolerance created divisions, leading to unrest and weakening the empire.

Ghulam Husain Khan (1727–1792) In Siyar-ul-Mutakhkhirin, Ghulam Husain Khan noted that Aurangzeb’s extreme religious policies alienated both Hindus and many Muslims. He linked this intolerance to instability and rebellion.

Maulana Shibli Nomani (1857–1914) A scholar who generally supported Islamic governance, Shibli Nomani still criticized Aurangzeb’s excessive conservatism. He argued that the emperor’s strict policies backfired, speeding up the empire’s decline.

Sufi Scholars Opposed Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies

Aurangzeb considered himself a devout follower of Sufism, but many respected Sufi scholars opposed his harsh and rigid rule.

Shaykh Muhammad Masum Sirhindi (d. 1668, Naqshbandi Sufi) Initially, he supported Aurangzeb but later criticized his authoritarian approach. He advised Aurangzeb to rule with justice instead of religious extremism, but his warnings were ignored.

Hazrat Shah Kalimullah Jahanabadi (1650–1729, Chishti Sufi) A key figure in the Chishti Sufi tradition, he emphasized love and tolerance over rigid religious laws. He openly disagreed with Aurangzeb’s extreme policies and promoted coexistence instead.

Lessons for Today’s Muslims and Hindus

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

Aurangzeb’s legacy is not a model of Islamic strength but a reminder of how intolerance and authoritarianism can lead to the downfall of even the most powerful empires.

For Muslims, true strength lies in justice, wisdom, and coexistence—not in defending rulers whose legacy is marked by division and controversy. It is more important to uphold Islamic values of patience, knowledge, and tolerance.

For Hindus, the rich history of Indian civilization should be a source of pride. India has endured and thrived for thousands of years because of its resilience, inclusivity, and wisdom. However, it is crucial not to let history be used to divide society further.

By taking a balanced view of the past, both Muslims and Hindus can work toward unity and mutual respect. Instead of clinging to divisive narratives, we should focus on building a future of understanding and harmony.