Vaibhav Singh opened the conversation with a blunt observation: there seems to be a glaring absence of protests when it comes to atrocities faced by Uyghur Muslims in China, Balochs in Pakistan, or even the Sindhi and Pashtun communities who have endured brutal oppression. He questioned why the deaths of 20,000 Mahajirs in Karachi, Hyderabad, and Sukkur go unmentioned in Indian Muslim discourse, while emotional demonstrations erupt for Palestine and Rohingya Muslims.

He highlighted the horrific reality in Xinjiang, where practicing Islam is almost criminalized—people are forced to surrender prayer mats in police stations, growing a beard is banned, and even Islamic names are discouraged. Yet, no placards or rallies appear in Indian streets for them.

Instead, Singh lamented, the spotlight is always on Palestine. Thousands protest in Indian cities, sometimes to the extent of vandalism, as was the case when some reportedly attacked Amar Jawan Jyoti in Mumbai in the name of solidarity with the Rohingyas. “Why such selective empathy?” he asked. “Are Indian Muslims afraid of Pakistan and China?”

Zahack Tanvir responded with a layered analysis that combined historical context with geopolitical realism. He agreed that the overwhelming focus on Palestine while ignoring other equally devastating crises suggests a form of emotional manipulation rather than informed advocacy. “Most Muslims here don’t even realize that India is engaged in a silent conflict with both Pakistan and China,” he said. “But even beyond that, there is a kind of shameless tunnel vision—where people hold on to just one or two issues and act as if those define the entire Muslim world’s struggle.”

He dug deeper into the Palestinian issue, emphasizing how it has evolved over the last 75 years into a political industry. “Billions have been poured into it. NGOs, lobbies, donations, protests—yet no solution has emerged. Not because one isn’t possible, but because resolving it would shut down a global cottage industry of activism, influence, and income,” Zahack said. He clarified that his statements weren’t anti-Palestinian but rather critical of the politicization of their suffering.

He further illustrated how Palestinians, themselves a diverse mix of Muslims, Christians, Communists, Marxists, and Atheists, have historically disrupted the very nations that sheltered them. In Lebanon, internal conflict erupted with the local Christian population. In Jordan, they attempted to assassinate King Hussein. “This isn’t just a Muslim issue—it was initially an Arab issue supported by Arab Christians,” Zahack explained.

Shifting the lens inward, he shared a startling reality: many Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians are unaware that India has over 250 million Muslims. “When I told them, they were shocked. For them, Pakistan equals Muslims, and India equals Hindus,” Zahack said.

And yet, Indian Muslims in places like Mominpura, Shivaji Nagar, or Zakir Nagar wage symbolic battles—boycotting multinational brands like Nestlé, Starbucks, and McDonald’s—as a gesture of protest.

“But what difference does it make? In 1973, all Arab nations imposed an oil embargo on the U.S. It didn’t stop America from giving $2 billion in aid to Israel, and later $8 billion more,” Zahack pointed out. “When a country has wealth and a strong lobby, a few boycotted chocolates and potato chips won’t matter.”

Zahack stressed that national interest should always come first. “Every country is looking after itself. Sudan and Morocco don’t have a problem with Israel. Bahrain and the UAE have formal ties. The Turks and Kurds have moved on. So why are we getting emotionally entangled in their politics?”

Zahack reiterated India’s pragmatic foreign policy: a two-state solution that respects both Israeli and Palestinian rights to exist. “India isn’t blindly siding with anyone. It maintains healthy relations with Russia, the U.S., Israel, and the Arab nations. We are focused on trade, growth, and development,” he said.

He ended the discussion with a powerful anecdote: while speaking with an Egyptian army officer, Zahack explained why India doesn’t get involved in third-party fights. The officer nodded in agreement, appreciating India’s non-interventionist stance.

“Why should we fight your fight?” Zahack asked. “You fight today and hug tomorrow. We’ll mind our own business.”

The dialogue between Vaibhav Singh and Zahack Tanvir wasn’t just a critique of selective outrage; it was a call to maturity in activism. It challenged Indian Muslims—and Indians at large—to think with clarity, weigh their allegiances with wisdom, and prioritize national interest over borrowed causes.

Prophet Mohammad honored him by saying, “He was the best of the Jews”, recognizing his noble spirit and contribution to the broader cause.

On April 2, 2025, during a intense parliamentary debate over the Waqf Amendment Bill, India’s ruling party’s lawmaker Nishikant Dubey made a striking reference that caught the attention of both historians and common citizens alike. While defending the bill, which proposes to bring structural reforms and inclusivity to the administration of waqf properties, Dubey cited the example of a 7th-century Jewish scholar and leader—Rabbi Mukhayriq.

His words triggered a wave of curiosity about a figure not often mentioned in popular discourse—especially within Indian political conversations. Who was this Rabbi, and why is he relevant in today’s debate on religious property and national interest?

Who Was Rabbi Mukhayriq?

Rabbi Mukhayriq was a prominent Jewish scholar and wealthy landowner from the Banu Tha’labah tribe of Medina. He lived during the time of Prophet Mohammad and is remembered in Islamic and Jewish historical traditions for his courageous and selfless actions during the Battle of Uhud in 625 CE.

On the day of the battle, the city of Medina faced an imminent threat from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. As fate would have it, the day fell on the Sabbath—a holy day for Jews, on which work and combat are generally forbidden. Despite this religious restriction, Rabbi Mukhayriq gathered his people and urged them to fight alongside the Muslims to defend their shared homeland. When his fellow tribesmen hesitated due to Sabbath laws, he rebuked them and reportedly said, “You have no Sabbath”, stressing that the defense Medina was a higher moral responsibility.

Rabbi Mukhayriq went to the battlefield and fought alongside the Muslim army. He died in the battle, becoming one of the few Jewish martyrs in the defense of Medina. He was buried in the ‘Shoda-e-Uhud’ graveyard alongside Prophet’s uncle Hamza Bin Abdul-Mutallib.

Before leaving, he had instructed that all his wealth—including several orchards—be handed over to Prophet Mohammad. The Prophet accepted this and used the wealth to establish one of Islam’s first waqf (charitable endowments), which was used to serve the poor and support the growing Muslim community.

Prophet Mohammad honored him by saying, “He was the best of the Jews”, recognizing his noble spirit and contribution to the broader cause.

A Lesson in Interfaith Unity

What makes Rabbi Mukhayriq’s story timeless is not just his bravery, but the message it carries about interfaith cooperation. At a time when divisions between communities often lead to conflict, Mukhayriq’s sacrifice reminds us that people of different faiths can—and have—worked together for the common good—to defend the national cause.

The Battle of Uhud wasn’t just a military confrontation—it was a moment that tested the moral fabric of Medina’s diverse society. The actions of Rabbi Mukhayriq exemplify that protecting a shared homeland and values sometimes means putting community above personal interests—even above religious norms.

It also highlights how early Muslims and Jews, despite theological differences, stood together when it mattered most.

Relevance in Modern India

MP Nishikant Dubey’s invocation of Mukhayriq during the Waqf Amendment Bill debate wasn’t accidental. The bill proposes to broaden waqf board membership to include non-Muslim experts and aims to improve transparency and governance in the management of waqf properties—assets donated for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.

Supporters of the bill argue that involving non-Muslims, especially legal and financial professionals, can improve efficiency and reduce corruption. Critics, however, view it as state interference in religious affairs. India’s Home Minister Amit Shah stated that, non-Muslims shall not interfere into religious affairs come what may.

Dubey’s reference to Mukhayriq was used to draw a powerful parallel—that the spirit of community service and unity across faith lines is not alien to Islamic tradition. He framed the reforms not as interference, but as an invitation to all Indians, regardless of religion, to participate in nation-building and the transparent management of shared resources.

A Legacy Worth Remembering

Rabbi Mukhayriq’s legacy is more than a footnote in Islamic history—it is a shining example of moral courage, selflessness, and the power of interfaith unity. In times where communal tensions are often stoked for political gain, his story serves as a reminder that the higher cause of justice, harmony, and national interest can—and should—transcend religious boundaries.