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.

The Indian Air Force carried out the strike in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), targeting a known Jaish safehouse believed to be harboring senior militant leadership. According to senior defense officials, Rauf Azhar was confirmed to be present at the location at the time of the strike and was neutralized in the attack.

A Symbolic and Strategic Blow

Rauf Azhar, the younger brother of JeM’s founder Masood Azhar, had long evaded justice. He was internationally wanted not only for his role in Daniel Pearl’s brutal murder but also for orchestrating multiple terror attacks against Indian civilians and security personnel.

His death marks a significant blow to the Jaish-e-Mohammed network, which has been responsible for numerous terror incidents, including the 2019 Pulwama attack that killed 40 Indian paramilitary troops.

The Legacy of Daniel Pearl’s Case

Daniel Pearl, the South Asia bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, was abducted in Karachi, Pakistan, while investigating links between British extremist Richard Reid and Al-Qaeda. Days later, a gruesome video of his beheading was released by his captors.

While Omar Saeed Sheikh was arrested and convicted in the case, global intelligence agencies consistently pointed to Abdul Rauf Azhar as the shadow figure who coordinated Pearl’s kidnapping and death from behind the scenes.

Despite multiple requests from the United States and Interpol for his arrest, Rauf Azhar remained shielded under Pakistan ISI’s “strategic depth” policy—where certain terrorist elements are quietly tolerated.

Global Implications

The operation comes at a time of heightened tension between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians. It is also a stark reminder of the lingering impunity enjoyed by some terror masterminds within Pakistan’s borders.

India’s strike and the death of Rauf Azhar has drawn attention globally. Human rights activists and observers of counterterrorism policy have long criticized Pakistan for not doing enough to curb terrorism emanating from its soil. With this operation, India has filled that vacuum of accountability.

The Broader Message

By targeting one of the key orchestrators of one of the most heinous crimes against journalism in recent history, India has signaled a shift toward assertive counter-terror operations across borders when provoked.

While Islamabad has yet to issue an official statement, intelligence sources suggest that security has been beefed up around JeM installations and family members of Masood Azhar.

This operation is being viewed not only as a military success but also as a moral reckoning. Daniel Pearl’s memory—and the legacy of free press—has found a measure of long-overdue justice.