When asked what finally broke the camel’s back, he explained that tensions within SIMI had been simmering…

The interviewee is a senior jailed leader of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), imprisoned for over 15 years across various district and central prisons, with several trials still pending. This reporter met him during a court hearing. SIMI, banned in 2001, was a student organization accused of extremist activities. 

His name appears in Indian Mujahideen: The Enemy Within by Shishir Gupta as an attendee of the 2006 Ujjain meeting, and in multiple intelligence and media reports linking him closely to Safdar Nagori and other top SIMI leaders. And at the time of his arrest undoubtedly top 10 leaders of the organization. He spoke on strict conditions of anonymity.

The interview has been edited and condensed.

He says his journey into SIMI began rather innocuously — through a study centre in his locality operated by the organization. “I used to go there simply to study. They had good study material,” recalls the senior leader, now in his mid forties. But, he admits, that space gradually became his entry point into a world of ideas that would go on to take him to the path of Political Islam.

“Before the ban, I was not very active, I came into contact with them only eight months before the Ban” he says candidly. But the government’s ban on SIMI in 2001, he says, was a turning point. “It made me rethink my ideas, and the larger question of how Islam is being attacked in India. I began to ask myself — if an organization or an ideology is so vehemently targeted by the state, then perhaps there’s something in it that unsettles the powers that be.”

It was this line of thought that pushed him deeper into the Underground Islamist movement. “I began reading more, and became more active after the Ban,” he says. 

By Mid 2004, he found himself drawn into the organization’s inner circles. He recalls being part of several meetings that would later culminate in the eventual split within SIMI.

When asked what finally broke the camel’s back, he explained that tensions within SIMI had been simmering since Shahid Badr Falahi, SIMI President’s release from prison. By then, Falahi had already developed ideological differences with Safdar Nagori’s faction. 

Yet, the breaking point came with a meeting in Bengaluru, where a committee was formed to promote and campaign for an international Caliphate ( Khilafat) and explore possible approaches for jihad in India. When Falahi returned to Azamgarh, he and his supporters denounced these resolutions as reckless and suicidal.

Within twenty days, another meeting was convened in Azamgarh to revoke the Bengaluru decisions—an episode that coincided with Falahi’s formal retirement. “The revocation unsettled me no end, I realized then that they lacked the conviction to carry the struggle forward. The split that followed was inevitable—they were cowardly and hypocritical, willing to sacrifice Islam and the so-called radicals, to preserve SIMI’s image.”

When Falahi retired, he directed his supporters to withdraw completely from all forms of organizational work and activism. He instructed them to suspend any plans for agitation or mobilization and instead focus their entire effort on challenging the government’s proscription of SIMI before the Tribunal. 

This marked a decisive shift in SIMI’s internal orientation, signaling Falahi’s preference for a legal and defensive strategy over the confrontational path advocated by Nagori’s faction.

When asked about the approach of Falahi to go to the Tribunal to lift the ban, he scoffed: “How long have they been running to the Tribunal?” After this reporter answered “about 24 years,” he said, “There’s your answer. The Tribunal won’t solve this. We’ve wasted lakhs on that foolish body — seeking justice from the court of Batil (False Hood) will never restore the forces of Allah and His Messenger. 

When Justice Gita Mittal’s tribunal lifted the SIMI ban on 5 August 2008, the Union government immediately ran to the Supreme Court and obtained a stay the very next day. Even if the Tribunal decides in our favour it is of no use to us.

“The so-called moderate SIMI was filled with corrupt people,” he remarked sharply. 

“Let me tell you an incident—you know X , right?” he asked this reporter, I nodded in recognition. “He was suspended because he embezzled one lakh rupees from SIMI’s funds for his personal use. That’s your ‘moderate’ SIMI—the one celebrated by Muslim activists and sections of the left-leaning media as the real, legitimate organization.” 

He paused before adding, “They were morally compromised. That’s precisely why they were accepted by the mainstream.”

“This was not a one-off incident,” he emphasized. “It kept happening. The so-called Islamist activists, the self-styled mujahids, were involved in such acts repeatedly—even as they projected piety and hurled moral questions at others. We at the lower ranks had no idea. 

Only after rising within the organization did I begin to see how deep it ran. It was rampant, pervasive, and never made public, there was widespread corruption at the upper echelons of SIMI.”

He also accused Falahi faction of siding with the state and framing the Nagori Group, while projecting that a “hardline group” within SIMI pushed for militancy, and had hijacked the organization and he was fighting the same people that the state was fighting. 

By March 2006, the movement had practically become defunct, he says. Those who came to be labelled by the media as the Nagori group, he adds, were trying to revive the movement and continue its work.

Reflecting on his own activism and ideas , he says many of those later branded as the Nagori group were influenced by the Taliban’s regime in Afghanistan, which he saw as the only “true” example of social justice and Islam. 

“I read that a bag of money lay untouched for three days in Kabul,” he said. “That is Islam’s justice.” If we seek to implement the same in India, what is wrong?

If Hindutva forces can openly demand a Hindu Rashtra with the ruling party’s and its parent organizations blessing, why should Muslims be ashamed to assert their own religious aspirations? 

In a democracy, we have the same right to state our convictions — not a version concocted by mullahs or madrasas, but one grounded in the teachings of Allah and His Prophet. We are not inventing Islam; we are reclaiming the faith’s principles and asking for the muslims to follow what they claim to follow.

“Modi and Yogi have made our work easier—the rage is already there. The Muslim masses are crying out for a movement like SIMI. But the cowards and hypocrites who call themselves leaders of the Muslim community, this spineless leadership, cannot channelize that anger. They have betrayed the very people they claim to represent.”

On being asked about his thoughts of SIMI being involved in Terrorist acts? He said, “At the 2006 Ujjain meeting we resolved to carry out targeted attacks on Hindutva leaders and state agents we held responsible for crimes against Muslims — but we explicitly rejected suicide bombings and indiscriminate terror”.

Although the state has blamed SIMI for many attacks, he insisted, “We have never killed an Indian civilian” and categorically denied involvement in terrorist attacks.

He conceded the organisation discussed and even shortlisted targets — naming Pravin Togadia and L.K. Advani — arguing such killings would “send a strong message” to those who, in his view, violated the sanctity of their faith.

Apart from that admission, he told the reporter that much of what is already in the public record about the group’s activities is broadly accurate except the aspect mentioned above, that “SIMI was involved in terrorist activities”.

As the interview neared its end, he was asked about his thoughts on Safdar Nagori. His response was firm, “Safdar Nagori is a hero. He has never bowed before batil (falsehood), and he never will. We are proud of him and confident in his resolve. We expect nothing but our eventual release or martyrdom, Inshallah.”

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

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.