While the institution maintains Islamic character, it is deeply embedded within the Israeli state system.

In the heart of Israel’s diverse legal system lies a remarkable institution: the Shariah courts. Far from being relics of history, these courts remain active and relevant today, quietly handling personal matters for the country’s 1.7 million Muslim citizens. They represent not only legal pluralism, but also the careful balancing act between faith, law, and national identity in a complex society.

Ottoman Roots in a Modern Nation

Shariah courts in Israel trace their origins back to the Ottoman Empire, when Islamic law governed personal status matters for Muslims in the region. The British Mandate preserved the system, and rather than dismantling it after the formation of the State of Israel in 1948, the new government incorporated it into its judiciary. Today, these courts are fully recognized under Israeli law and function under the Ministry of Justice.

There are currently nine regional Shariah courts across the country, with a Supreme Shariah Court headquartered in Jerusalem. These courts have jurisdiction over personal status issues such as marriage, divorce, child custody, alimony, inheritance, and burial for Muslim citizens.

Functioning Inside the Israeli Legal Framework

Muslim citizens of Israel can voluntarily use the Shariah courts to resolve family matters in line with Islamic tradition. Qadis (judges) appointed to these courts must be trained in both Shariah and Israeli civil law. Their rulings are legally binding and enforceable like any other court decision in the country.

While the institution maintains Islamic character, it is deeply embedded within the Israeli state system. This integration creates a unique dynamic — one which is both accepted and questioned by segments of the Arab Muslim community and Israeli society at large.

Influencer Shareef Safadi Sheds Light on Tel Aviv’s Shariah Court

Popular Arab-Israeli influencer Shareef Safadi, known for his educational and cultural commentary, brought the Shariah court in Tel Aviv into public focus through a now-viral video filmed in Jaffa. His commentary offers both humor and insight into how these courts operate in contemporary Israel.

“Today we are in the Sharia court in Tel Aviv,” he begins. “Yes, a Sharia court in Tel Aviv — or more specifically in Jaffa.”

Safadi explains the court’s primary role, “Now the Sharia court deals mainly with Islamic civil matters such as marriages, divorces, inheritance, and so on and so on.”

He adds a historical twist, pointing to the building’s past, “This house belonged to a Palestinian Christian family who fled during the war of 1948 during the Nakba. It was later used by the Israeli military, and then it was abandoned — and then after that, it became the Sharia court.”

In a reflective tone, he touches on symbolism and political nuance, “This court is part of the Israeli judicial system and therefore it has to have an Israeli flag. But when Arabs have to put the Israeli flag in governmental institutions, they fold it so the flag isn’t shown that much — as you can see in this court.”

Safadi’s video, layered with subtle commentary and cultural sensitivity, underscores the balancing act Muslim institutions in Israel navigate — functioning under a Jewish state while retaining a distinct religious and communal identity.

A Landmark Moment: The First Female Judge

In a historic development, Hana Khatib became Israel’s first female judge in the Shariah court system in 2017 — a watershed moment in a traditionally male-dominated domain. Appointed after a rigorous process, Khatib, a lawyer and expert in family law, broke significant barriers and became a symbol of evolving gender dynamics within Islamic jurisprudence in Israel.

Her appointment was widely celebrated among Arab-Israeli civil society and cautiously welcomed by religious authorities. For many Muslim women, Khatib’s presence in the courtroom provided a sense of representation and greater confidence in seeking justice through the Shariah courts.

Between Tradition and Modernity

For Muslim communities across Israel — from Nazareth to Rahat — the Shariah courts remain a vital thread in preserving religious identity within a modern, pluralistic state. Elders, imams, and family advocates continue to guide families in navigating these courts, ensuring that age-old traditions meet the demands of modern legal systems.

And while challenges persist — particularly around gender equity and modernization — the Shariah courts of Israel stand as a unique example in the region. They blend faith and law in a way that few other Middle Eastern states manage, allowing Muslims in Israel to live their personal lives in accordance with Islamic values — without stepping outside the bounds of the state.

In a nation often framed through the lens of conflict, the Shariah courts offer a quieter but profound story: of adaptation, coexistence, and continuity.

If any country, including Pakistan, ever invades India in the name of Ghazwa-e-Hind, they will find Indian Muslims defending their homeland

Among the many ideas that have found their way into the modern Islamic revivalist narrative, few are as persistently misunderstood—or dangerously misused—as the concept of Ghazwa-e-Hind. Popularized in contemporary times by figures like the late Dr. Israr Ahmed, it has come to be viewed not as a historical episode or a symbolic metaphor, but as a yet-to-be-fulfilled call to military conquest. This interpretation, though emotionally charged, is divorced from Islamic orthodoxy, historical context, and contemporary political reality.

This misreading of Islamic eschatology has become especially potent in Pakistan, where it has been weaponized by a segment of the clergy and even military-linked media. But what the masses often don’t see is that such a vision not only contradicts Islamic legal tradition, but also threatens the harmony of the Indian subcontinent, especially the future of Indian Muslims.

A Historical View—Not a Military Manual

The hadith that mentions Ghazwa-e-Hind is reported in Sunan an-Nasa’i (Hadith 3175), Musnad Ahmad (Hadith 23804), and al-Tabarani’s al-Mu’jam al-Kabir. The narration speaks of two groups saved from Hellfire—one that fights in India and another that accompanies Jesus, the son of Mary, during his second coming. However, Islamic scholars have long disagreed about the authenticity, context, and timeline of these narrations.

Renowned Hadith scholar Shaykh Nasiruddin al-Albani graded some of the chains as weak (da’if), while others like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari considered them authentic but possibly fulfilled during the early Islamic conquests. Ibn Kathir, in Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, also noted that the interpretation of these ahadith was limited to earlier periods of conquest.

Classical historians like al-Baladhuri in Futuh al-Buldan detail the campaign of Muhammad bin Qasim into Sindh (712 CE) as a response to an appeal from Muslim merchants and not as a sweeping religious war. The conquest was confined to a narrow region and did not reflect any systematic plan to convert India. Furthermore, the Chachnama, a semi-legendary Persian text documenting this campaign, narrates how religious freedom was granted to local Hindus and temples remained operational under Islamic rule.

Islamic scholar Dr. Ayesha Jalal, in her book Partisans of Allah: Jihad in South Asia, asserts that Ghazwa-e-Hind has been inflated in Pakistan’s religious discourse not because of religious necessity, but due to state-sponsored ideology. She writes that this hadith has “resurfaced with renewed intensity in Pakistan’s strategic imagination, filtered through a millenarian lens.”

The Qur’anic Command: No Compulsion in Religion

The most authoritative source in Islam—the Qur’an—states unequivocally: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256). This verse, supported by the consensus (ijma’) of scholars, has been interpreted as a foundational principle of religious freedom. In Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Imam al-Qurtubi elaborates that Islam forbids coercion because belief requires conviction, not force.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), when inviting tribes to Islam, used persuasion, kindness, and exemplary character—not threats. As recorded in Sirat Ibn Hisham and Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, his approach to da’wah was rooted in wisdom, not warfare.

Moreover, Tafsir al-Tabari on verse 16:125—“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching…”—explains that this verse sets the tone for all Islamic outreach. Any idea that religious dominance can be achieved through military force runs counter to the Qur’anic message and Prophetic model.

Prophecy ≠ Policy

Yes, Islam contains eschatological prophecies—many of which describe dramatic geopolitical changes in the end times.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) never told Muslims to build strategies around ghazwaat of the future. Instead, he focused on justice, reform, and internal purification.

Consider the Ghazwa of Abwa and Ghazwa of Ushayrah—expeditions that ended without a single arrow being shot. As documented in Al-Maghazi of al-Waqidi, many ghazwaat were precautionary or diplomatic. This is supported by Imam al-Nawawi’s commentary on Sahih Muslim, where he notes that military action in Islam is conditional on ethical, legal, and political necessities—not eschatological ambitions.

The Spread of Islam: A Moral Project, Not a Military One

Historically, Islam’s most significant growth occurred in regions where armies never marched. Southeast Asia, East Africa, and large swathes of India were introduced to Islam not through conquest but through trade and spiritual invitation.

Dr. Richard Eaton, in his landmark study The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, highlights how Sufi saints and local rulers facilitated Islamization in Bengal through land reforms, spiritual guidance, and social integration—not through war. Similarly, Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi in Islam and the World emphasizes that Islamic civilization at its best was spread through service, justice, and education.

The Prophet himself said: “I was sent to perfect noble character” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 8595). This foundational hadith is echoed in the works of Imam al-Ghazali in Ihya Ulum al-Din, who taught that spiritual excellence—not militarism—is the soul of Islamic revival.

Pakistan’s Fantasy vs Indian Muslims’ Reality

One of the more troubling developments is the Pakistani state’s occasional use of Ghazwa-e-Hind as a symbolic justification for cross-border ambitions. In textbooks, speeches, and even TV dramas, the narrative of a future campaign to “liberate” Indian Muslims is floated as a divine responsibility.

But such narratives overlook one major truth: Indian Muslims are not waiting for salvation. They are proud citizens of India, heirs to over a thousand years of Islamic contribution to the subcontinent.

India has produced towering Islamic scholars—Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi, Shah Waliullah al-Dihlawi, Maulana Azad, and countless others. Its institutions—from Darul Uloom Deoband to Nadwatul Ulama—have trained generations of global scholars. The Indian Muslim identity is not subordinate to any external power. It is deeply rooted in the land, language, and ethos of India.

If any country, including Pakistan, ever invades India in the name of Ghazwa-e-Hind, they will find Indian Muslims defending their homeland, not cheering from the sidelines. As the Qur’an instructs: “Stand firmly for justice…” (4:135). That includes standing against unjust aggression—even if it’s done in the name of religion.

From Brigadier Muhammad Usman, the hero of Nowshera, to Captain Haneefuddin, who laid down his life in Kargil, Indian Muslims have proven their loyalty with blood.

Let no one mistake their silence for weakness or their faith for disloyalty. The Prophet loved Makkah. The Indian Muslim loves India.

Time for Responsibility, Not Rhetoric

Dr. Israr Ahmed’s intellectual legacy is mixed. While he awakened many to the idea of Islamic revival, his fixation on militarism—untethered from contemporary fiqh and political wisdom—misguided many. Today, young Muslims must be trained not in war slogans but in the Qur’an, Hadith, ethics, law, and service.

The return of a Caliphate, if it happens, must mirror the model of the Prophet—founded on justice, consultation, and mercy. Not through firebrand nationalism or weaponized hadiths.

Ghazwa-e-Hind has become more of a political trope than a theological reality. When read responsibly, Islamic tradition offers no justification for cross-border aggression dressed in prophecy. The real ghazwa we need today is against ignorance, sectarianism, and political manipulation.

Let us turn our energies toward rebuilding our societies—through knowledge, reform, and character. That is the legacy of the Prophet. That is the path of the righteous.

Being Indian First means embracing the idea that our national interests—security, prosperity, and unity—transcend the boundaries of religion, caste, or creed.

As an Indian Muslim and a counterextremism expert, I often find myself at the crossroads of a question that stirs heated debates: Indian First or Muslim First? This question, as I recently tweeted, is not a casual inquiry but a deliberate probe into whether we, as Indian Muslims, prioritize our national identity and the interests of our country over our religious affiliations. It’s a question rooted in history, shaped by the fault lines of our past, and one that demands an honest reckoning.

My answer is unequivocal: Indian First. Always.

This question isn’t about undermining religious beliefs or pushing for a homogenized cultural identity. It’s about recognizing the undeniable reality that religious identity, particularly Islam, has been a significant factor in some of the most divisive moments in our nation’s history.

In 1947, the creation of Pakistan under Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s leadership was driven by the idea that Muslims needed a separate homeland. The partition that followed tore apart the fabric of a united India, leaving scars that still ache. Later, in 1971, the birth of Bangladesh further fragmented the subcontinent.

And in Kashmir, decades of insurgency have been fueled, in part, by the interplay of religious identity and separatist ambitions. These events weren’t merely political—they were seismic shifts where religious identity was weaponized to balkanize our great nation.

Let me be clear: acknowledging this history doesn’t mean vilifying Islam or questioning the faith of millions of Indian Muslims. It means confronting the ways in which religious identity has, at times, been manipulated to prioritize “biradari”—our brethren—over the nation.

This manipulation isn’t unique to Islam; it’s a tactic used across communities to sow division. But as Indian Muslims, we must ask ourselves: can we allow our religious identity to supersede our loyalty to the nation that nurtures us, protects us, and gives us a shared future?

Choosing “Indian First” doesn’t mean abandoning our faith. I am a proud Muslim, and my religious beliefs guide my values and my sense of purpose. But faith is personal—it’s a compass for the soul, not a blueprint for national policy.

When we prioritize our religious identity over our national one, we risk falling into the trap of exclusionary thinking, where “us” versus “them” becomes the lens through which we see the world. That mindset fuels mistrust, alienates communities, and weakens the pluralistic ethos that makes India unique.

Being Indian First means embracing the idea that our national interests—security, prosperity, and unity—transcend the boundaries of religion, caste, or creed. It means recognizing that the progress of our nation benefits us all, regardless of our personal beliefs. It’s about standing firm against any ideology, whether rooted in religion or otherwise, that seeks to divide us. This choice doesn’t dilute our identity as Muslims; it strengthens our role as stakeholders in India’s future.

The question of “Indian First or Muslim First?” also carries a broader lesson for all Indians. In a country as diverse as ours, every community faces moments where loyalty to a subgroup—whether religious, linguistic, or regional—can clash with the greater good. The answer lies in choosing the nation over narrower affiliations, not because we must erase our differences, but because our differences thrive best under the umbrella of a united India.

My work has taught me that extremism often begins with the elevation of one identity over others, creating a hierarchy of loyalty that erodes shared purpose. In India, we have the chance to reject that path. We can build a future where our diversity is our strength, not our fault line.

So, when asked, I say: Indian First. Always. Not because I love my faith any less, but because I love my country enough to know that its unity is our greatest asset. Let’s choose a nation that stands tall, not one divided by the echoes of 1947. Let’s choose India—together.

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

This might come as a surprise, maybe even a shock to some, but neither the crescent nor the star has any basis as an Islamic religious symbol.

Ask almost any Pakistani today, or even many Muslims across the world, what the crescent and star on the Pakistani flag mean, and you’ll probably hear a confident answer: “They are Islamic symbols!”

But here’s the truth — they are not.

This might come as a surprise, maybe even a shock to some, but neither the crescent nor the star has any basis as an Islamic religious symbol. Not in the Quran, not in the teachings of Prophet Mohammed, and not even among the early generations of Muslims.

In fact, according to a clear ruling from IslamQA, one of the most respected Saudi fatwa (Islamic ruling) portals, the crescent and star have no roots in Islamic teachings whatsoever.

When someone asked on IslamQA (Question No: 1528): “What is the symbolism behind the Muslim star and crescent?”

The scholars answered clearly: “There is no basis in Shari`ah for taking the crescent or star as a symbol of the Muslims. This was not known at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or at the time of the Khulafa Al-Rashidun, or during the Umayyad dynasty.”

They went on to explain that historians disagree on exactly when Muslims started using these symbols. Some say they came from the Persians, others say from the Greeks. What’s certain is that it wasn’t the Muslims who invented it, and it definitely wasn’t something the Prophet Mohammad or his companions endorsed.

A Symbol Borrowed, Not Revealed

So where did the crescent and star actually come from?

Long before Islam even appeared, civilizations like the Greeks, Romans, and Persians were already using the crescent and star in their emblems, coins, and banners. In fact, around 300 BC, the Greek colony of Byzantium (which later became Constantinople, and eventually Istanbul) used the crescent in its city flag. Later, the famous Pontic king Mithridates VI adopted the crescent and star combination as a royal emblem after he took control of Byzantium for a brief period.

Fast forward a few centuries: The Persian Sassanian Empire, long before Islam, minted coins bearing the crescent and star. And when early Muslim rulers conquered Persia, they initially continued using the same coin designs — not out of religious endorsement, but simply because they were replicating existing currency systems.

Later, during the rise of the mighty Ottoman Empire, the crescent and star became closely tied with Muslim identity, not through divine instruction but through politics and imperial symbolism. The Ottoman flag of 1844 — a white crescent and star on a red background — became a powerful emblem of their rule.

When Turkey modernized in the 20th century, they kept the crescent-star motif, and many Muslim countries — like Pakistan, Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, Malaysia, Tunisia, Algeria — incorporated it into their national flags too.

Why Some Muslims Think It’s Islamic

Because the Ottoman Empire was seen for centuries as the seat of the Islamic caliphate, the association between their state symbol and Islam grew stronger in people’s minds. Over time, many Muslims — especially during the nationalist and Islamist movements of the 20th century — started embracing the crescent and star as “Islamic.”

But let’s be clear: This connection is cultural, not religious.

Unlike the cross in Christianity — which directly symbolizes Jesus’ crucifixion — there is no divine event, revelation, or command linking Islam with the crescent and star.

It’s just a case of history blending with perception.

Theological Reality: Stars and Moons Are Just Creation

In Islam, celestial bodies like the moon and stars are indeed respected — but as creations of God, not as sacred symbols.

Islamic teachings emphasize that the moon and stars have no power to influence our fate, bring blessings, or cause harm. They are signs of God’s creative power, nothing more. Worship or reverence is strictly reserved for God alone.

Thus, attaching sacred meaning to the crescent and star, treating them as holy, or reacting angrily if someone “disrespects” them, is simply not part of Islamic belief.

So, Is It a Sin to Walk Over a Crescent and Star Symbol?

Absolutely not.

Since neither the crescent nor the star are Islamic symbols, walking over them, wearing them on socks, printing them on T-shirts, or even using them in decorative ways is not a sin or an act of rebellion against God.

If someone feels emotional about it out of patriotism — for instance, feeling hurt if the Pakistani flag is trampled — that’s understandable as a matter of national pride for Pakistanis alone, but it’s not a religious issue for all Muslims.

God has not commanded us to venerate flags or symbols. His command is to worship Him.

A Call for Clear Thinking

In today’s world, where misinformation spreads easily, it’s crucial for Muslims to stay anchored in authentic knowledge rather than cultural myths.

Islam is a faith of clarity, not confusion. Our symbols are not man-made designs but eternal truths: Belief in God and righteous deeds.

So the next time you see a crescent and star, appreciate their beauty, admire their history, recognize their role in culture and heritage — but don’t mistake them for something they’re not.

Our strength as Muslims lies in knowledge, truth, and clear understanding, not in clinging to symbols that history accidentally handed down to us.

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.