Fighting Muslim terrorists is not a betrayal of Islam—it is one of its highest forms of loyalty. It is an act of service to God, to humanity, and to the truth itself.

In recent years, a disturbing misconception has taken root in public discourse—both among some Muslims and many non-Muslims—that if a Muslim is practising his faith, he will avoid condemning or fighting so-called “Muslim” terrorists. This idea is not only misguided, it is dangerous. Islam’s moral and legal framework makes it clear: injustice and aggression are to be opposed, regardless of who commits them.

It is true that terrorism often hides behind religion to gain legitimacy. But when those committing violence claim to act in the name of Islam, the duty of practising Muslims to reject and oppose them becomes even greater. This is not a betrayal of our faith; it is its fulfilment.

The Qur’anic mandate to fight oppression

The Qur’an is explicit about our duty in such cases. Allah says in Surah Al-Hujurat (49:9): “And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.”

This verse leaves no room for doubt. When believers fall into conflict, our first duty is reconciliation. But if one side turns into an aggressor—whether through violence, injustice, or rebellion—it becomes a religious obligation to resist that side until the aggression ends. The fight is not for power, revenge, or political gain; it is for restoring justice and order. And crucially, when peace is restored, we are commanded to reconcile with fairness, not perpetuate hostilities.

This principle is profoundly important in today’s context. Groups such as Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and others claim to fight for Islam but commit atrocities against civilians, destroy communities, and distort the religion’s message. According to Qur’anic guidance, such actions are not just crimes—they are acts of oppression that demand a firm response from the Muslim community itself.

The Prophetic Precedent

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself set the precedent for dealing with extremist rebels. Among the most notorious examples in early Islamic history was the emergence of the Khawaarij. They were a puritanical faction who declared other Muslims as disbelievers and shed innocent blood in the name of religion.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) warned against them in multiple authentic narrations, describing them as people who would “recite the Qur’an but it would not go beyond their throats” and who would “exit the religion as an arrow leaves the bow.” He commanded the Muslim community to fight them when they became violent, because their actions endangered both faith and society.

This precedent destroys the myth that one must stay silent or passive in the face of violent Muslims. On the contrary, Islam considers it a duty to confront them, to protect the innocent, and to preserve the integrity of the religion from distortion.

Breaking the silence within the Muslim community

Sadly, in modern times, some Muslims hesitate to speak against extremist groups for fear of “washing dirty linen in public.” They worry that condemning terrorists will give ammunition to Islamophobes. This fear is understandable but misplaced.

The truth is, remaining silent only strengthens the extremists and allows Islam’s enemies to portray their crimes as representative of the entire faith. By contrast, openly opposing and dismantling these groups sends a powerful message: they do not speak for us, they do not act in our name, and they will be resisted from within.

In fact, this is precisely the kind of intellectual and moral leadership that is needed today. If we do not take ownership of the narrative, others will—and they will not portray Islam with justice.

A duty rooted in justice, not politics

One of the most remarkable features of the Qur’anic command in Surah Al-Hujurat is its emphasis on justice, even towards those we fight. The moment the aggressors return to obedience and abandon their violence, the Qur’an orders us to stop fighting and reconcile. This is not a call for vengeance or perpetual hostility. It is a framework for restoring peace, protecting lives, and upholding fairness.

This stands in stark contrast to how modern terrorist groups operate. Their violence is indiscriminate, their grievances are often politically inflated, and their methods directly contradict Islamic rules of war, which prohibit harming civilians, destroying property unnecessarily, or targeting places of worship.

The cost of ignoring this duty is immense. We have seen entire Muslim-majority countries destabilized by the unchecked spread of extremist violence. Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and parts of Nigeria are just a few examples. In each case, ordinary Muslims have suffered the most—losing homes, livelihoods, and loved ones.

Extremist violence not only harms individuals; it also damages Islam’s global image, making it harder for peaceful Muslims to practise their faith without prejudice. Fighting such groups is, therefore, both a moral obligation to protect the innocent and a strategic necessity to safeguard the religion’s honour.

Standing firm against distortion

As a practising Muslim, when I oppose violent extremists, I do so not because I am less religious, but because my faith compels me to. I take this stand not to appease anyone, but to fulfil a divine command. Those who threaten peace will not find peace from us, regardless of their slogans or claimed piety.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) warned us about the harm of such groups long before they appeared in modern form. Our job is to heed that warning and act on it.

In the end, fighting Muslim terrorists is not a betrayal of Islam—it is one of its highest forms of loyalty. It is an act of service to God, to humanity, and to the truth itself.

The Qur’an commands it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) practised it. And history shows us the consequences of ignoring it.

For the sake of our religion, our societies, and the generations to come, we cannot afford silence. We must stand up, speak out, and, when necessary, take decisive action against those who bring violence into the name of our faith. This is not only our civic duty—it is our Islamic duty.

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

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.

Umar Shareef

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror.

The recent Pahalgam terror attack has once again tested the patience and resolve of the Indian nation. The aftermath has taken us to the brink of yet another war-like situation between India and Pakistan. In response to the brutal killing of 26 Indian civilians, the Indian government launched Operation Sindoor, a precise military strike aimed at dismantling Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

According to reports, the Indian Air Force targeted 14 locations, including the JeM camps in Bahawalpur—reportedly killing 13 individuals associated with the terror outfit, some of them family members of the group’s chief, Masood Azhar. This decisive retaliation is a reflection of India’s zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism, particularly those sponsored or sheltered across the border.

But what followed was telling.

In retaliation, Pakistan shelled the border town of Poonch in Jammu & Kashmir. The victims were not military targets—they were civilians. Among the dead were Kashmiri Muslim children and women. These were our own people. This act by the Pakistani army reflects not strength, but a moral bankruptcy that has long plagued its strategic outlook. Instead of countering India’s military moves tactically, Pakistan chose to engage in indiscriminate shelling, targeting those who had no weapons, no uniforms, and no role in the military operations—just ordinary Indian Muslims.

This isn’t the first time Pakistan has committed such atrocities. If history teaches us anything, it’s that we’ve seen this script before. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the Pakistani army reportedly killed over 300,000 Bengalis, according to the Bangladesh Genocide Archive. Most were Muslims. Many women were raped. Entire villages were wiped out. And yet, Pakistan continues to cloak itself in the garb of Islamic righteousness while violating every ethical and humanitarian code Islam prescribes.

This duality is not just deceptive—it is dangerous.

To the leaders of the Islamic world, I pose some hard questions:

Is Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s Operation Sindoor consistent with Islamic ethics?

Can the killing of Muslim children in Poonch be justified under any circumstances?

Is this the conduct of an “Islamic Republic”?

As an Indian Muslim, I say this with clarity and conviction: India is my homeland. It is a sovereign, pluralistic, democratic country that upholds the rights of all its citizens—Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others. Our Constitution protects us, and our armed forces include us.

I was deeply moved watching a recent press conference where Colonel Sophia Qureshi, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, and Ambassador Vikram Misri stood united, explaining the strategic aims of Operation Sindhoor. It was a portrait of unity: a Muslim woman in uniform, a Sikh diplomat, and a Hindu officer—this is the India we live in, and this is the India we love.

Let no one tell us we do not belong.

The Qur’an commands us clearly: “And if two groups among the believers should fight, then make peace between them. But if one oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of Allah…” – Surah Al-Hujurat (49:9)

This is not a call to bloodshed—it is a call to justice. We fight oppression, not people. We fight terrorists, not civilians. And when peace is offered, Islam commands us to accept it. But if one side continues to shelter groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or The Resistance Front, who actively undermine regional stability, then standing by and doing nothing is not an option.

Yes, Operation Sindoor may have caused some collateral damage. No life lost is ever trivial. But the mission had a clear objective: dismantle terror networks—not harm civilians. India’s action was measured and targeted. Pakistan’s was indiscriminate and vengeful.

As Indian Muslims, we draw our strength from both faith and patriotism. We are heirs to the legacy of Brigadier Muhammad Usman, the “Lion of Nowshera,” who laid down his life defending Kashmir in 1948. We remember Captain Haneefuddin, who fought bravely in the 1999 Kargil War. These are our heroes, our martyrs—Muslims who defended India against Pakistani aggression.

It is critical to understand that Islam encourages peaceful coexistence. When the Prophet Mohammed established the state of Madinah, he created a pluralistic charter involving Muslims, Jews, and pagans. He taught that alliances with non-Muslims are not just permissible, but necessary in the cause of justice and societal harmony. The story of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, who sought refuge with the Christian King of Abyssinia, is a powerful reminder that justice transcends religion.

We Indian Muslims face many challenges—from Pakistani propaganda to the rise of far-right elements at home. Yet, we stand firm. We will not be pawns in foreign agendas. We will not be deceived by narratives that seek to divide us.

We say with dignity: Inqilab Zindabad. Hindustan Zindabad. Victory to India.

We may critique our government or hold differing political opinions, especially with regard to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That is our democratic right. But our nation is not defined by any one party. India is defined by its people, its Constitution, and its unity in diversity.

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror. And peace cannot be preserved if Pakistan continues to target civilians and shelter jihadist outfits.

India reserves the right to protect itself. Under Public International Law, every sovereign nation has the right to eliminate threats to its people. That is what Operation Sindoor was about—and that is what justice demands.

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