The visit reflects the MWL’s continued commitment to promoting peace, understanding, and religious awareness throughout the Muslim community, while supporting nations in their pursuit of unity and stability.

The meeting, attended by Sudan’s Prime Minister Kamil Idris, focused on several areas of mutual interest, emphasizing the critical role that scholars and religious leaders play in nurturing social harmony and guiding communities toward moderation and tolerance.

The discussions highlighted how faith-based initiatives can serve as powerful tools for strengthening national unity and building bridges between diverse segments of society.

Dr. Al-Issa’s visit comes at a time when many nations are working to reinforce the principles of coexistence and compassion within their societies.

His engagement with Sudanese scholars underscored the MWL’s belief that true religious awareness goes beyond rituals and beliefs—it extends into fostering moral responsibility, respect for others, and a shared sense of humanity.

The dialogue aimed to empower religious figures to play a proactive role in encouraging dialogue, dispelling misconceptions, and countering extremist ideologies that threaten social cohesion.

During the visit, both sides reaffirmed their shared values and commitment to deepening cooperation in religious education, humanitarian initiatives, and cultural exchange.

The discussions touched on ways to promote balanced religious discourse that reflects the core teachings of Islam—peace, mercy, and justice.

Dr. Al-Issa praised the dedication of Sudanese scholars and their efforts in guiding communities through challenges while maintaining unity and faith-based resilience.

The Muslim World League, headquartered in Makkah, has long served as a global platform for promoting moderation, interfaith dialogue, and the true values of Islam.

Under Dr. Al-Issa’s leadership, the MWL has actively expanded its outreach to countries around the world, working with governments, religious institutions, and community organizations to spread messages of peace and mutual respect.

His visit to Sudan reflects this ongoing mission to ensure that religious understanding serves as a foundation for stability and progress.

In his discussions, Dr. Al-Issa highlighted the need for continuous collaboration between religious scholars and state institutions to ensure that faith remains a unifying force rather than a source of division.

He emphasized the importance of educating young people about authentic Islamic teachings that encourage coexistence and compassion, preparing them to become responsible citizens and positive contributors to society.

Prime Minister Kamil Idris expressed appreciation for the MWL’s efforts and for Dr. Al-Issa’s visit, noting that Sudan values the organization’s role in supporting the Muslim community worldwide.

He reaffirmed his government’s commitment to promoting moderate religious awareness as a cornerstone of national development.

The prime minister also underscored that Sudan welcomes cooperation with international religious bodies to enhance community education and promote moral and spiritual growth.

The meeting concluded with both sides agreeing to explore new initiatives focused on youth empowerment, education, and cultural programs designed to foster understanding among different communities.

Dr. Al-Issa’s visit not only strengthened ties between the MWL and Sudan but also highlighted the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s broader vision of global engagement—one rooted in peace, mutual respect, and humanitarian partnership.

This visit stands as a testament to the Muslim World League’s ongoing efforts to build bridges between nations, encourage cooperation among religious scholars, and support countries in their pursuit of harmony and progress.

By promoting religious awareness based on truth, compassion, and tolerance, the MWL continues to serve as a guiding light for the Muslim world, inspiring nations to embrace unity and shared purpose for a better future.

Pakistan’s “Ummah message” is clear: solidarity is for wars and slogans, not for marriages, not for everyday equality.

The dream of Muslim unity—or Ummah solidarity—is often invoked in rhetorical, moral, and geopolitical terms. Yet for many Pasmanda and low-caste Muslims across South Asia, that narrative carries within it deep hypocrisy.

It asks suffering communities to rally, to protest, to pledge loyalty to a pan-Islamic identity, when in practice those same communities are neglected, excluded, or discriminated against by the very states and elites claiming to speak for all Muslims.

Caste, Discrimination, and Dissent within Pakistan

The critique of Pakistani “Ummah” rhetoric is not limited to India. Within Pakistan itself, low-caste Muslim communities—what some call “Pasmanda Muslims” there as well—face systemic discrimination rooted in caste-like hierarchies, structural exclusion, and social stigma.

Although Islam in its doctrine rejects caste, in practice the South Asian Muslim world has retained stratification. Scholars and activists have spoken openly of “Sayedism” or “Ashrafization” — the assertion by Sayeds or claimants to noble descent of superiority over lower-status Muslim groups.

In Pakistan, communities such as Mochi (traditional cobblers), Charhoa / Qassar (washer communities), and other artisan or “untouchable” lineage groups (sometimes Darzi, Dhobi, etc.) continue to experience social exclusion, discrimination in marriage, limited property rights, denial of equal respect, and denial of participation in religious authority circles.

An Al Jazeera commentary notes that literal violence, land grabbing, social ostracism, and the silencing of caste disputes in Pakistani media all serve to preserve an illusion that caste does not exist in Muslim society. The caste hierarchies are “publicly silenced but privately enforced”.

Thus, when Pakistani elites broadcast solidarity with distant Muslim struggles, but ignore or suppress demands from low-caste Muslims in their own society, the claim of universal Ummah becomes hollow.

It exposes a divide: those inside the circle of power receive moral voice, those outside it are silenced.

Elite Endogamy and the Hypocrisy of Solidarity

One of the most telling tests of true unity is marriage. In South Asian Muslim societies, marriage is a powerful vector of status, integration, and symbolic equality.

If the Ummah narrative were sincere, one might expect that Muslim elites—whether in Pakistan or India—would intermarry with deserving low-caste or Pasmanda Muslims, as evidence of transcending internal hierarchies. But that rarely happens.

In both Indian and Pakistani Muslim societies, Ashraf (so-called noble or high status) elites typically marry among their own lineages: Sayeds with Sayeds, Sheikhs with Sheikhs, Mirzas with Mirzas. Marriages across caste lines—especially downward—are extremely rare and usually stigmatized.

Anecdotally and observationally, it is almost unheard of for Ashraf elites to openly marry women from Pasmanda communities, or to give wives’ daughters to men from marginalized Muslim castes. Why? Because endogamy is both a social ritual and a power mechanism: it maintains status boundaries, control over lineage, and cultural prestige.

When those elites then preach Ummah solidarity, insisting that Muslims everywhere must unite under one banner, they are demanding emotional allegiance from those whose own status they refuse to cross. It is a double standard: unity in rhetoric, exclusion in practice.

That hypocrisy is especially stark when these elites use Pakistan’s foreign policy or missionary zeal to rally Muslims in India, Afghanistan, Palestine or elsewhere, while shunning egalitarian social relations even within their own societies.

Pakistan’s “Ummah message” is clear: solidarity is for wars and slogans, not for marriages, not for everyday equality.

The Indian Muslim Exclusion from OIC & the One-Sided Cry for Ummah

Consider first the status of Indian Muslims in the broader Muslim world. India is home to perhaps the world’s largest minority Muslim population—over 150-200 million by many estimates.

Yet curiously, Indian Muslims have never enjoyed institutional voice in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC, which claims to represent the collective interests of Muslim nations, has never granted India—even as a non-member Muslim country—a meaningful seat, even consultative status, or real influence in its policymaking.

Critics point out that at the 1969 Rabat Islamic Summit, India was invited, but under pressure from Pakistan was made to withdraw. Pakistani diplomacy and influence have long insisted that India’s Muslim question be mediated through Islamabad’s narratives.

As Middle-east expert Zahack Tanvir puts it, “in five decades … Indian Muslims have never had a seat at the table of the OIC”, leaving India’s vast Muslim population institutionally invisible.

This exclusion is not a mere oversight. It is a structural marker: Indian Muslims are asked repeatedly to “stand for Ummah” in speeches, protests, diplomatic gestures, yet in the actual halls of power they are never granted membership or say. As Zahack aptly asked: “why do Indian Muslims continue to sacrifice … for a ‘brotherhood’ that has consistently ignored and sidelined them?”

The pattern is obvious: Pakistan claims to champion Muslim causes abroad—Kashmir, Palestine, Rohingya—but excludes the very Muslims living inside India from its leadership of that narrative. How can Muslims be united under a banner that denies agency and representation to hundreds of millions at home?

Toward a Sincere, Inclusive Ummah

This critique does not deny the spiritual or moral appeal of Muslim unity. Many Pasmanda Muslims, Indian or Pakistani, do believe in a compassionate Ummah—one of mutual responsibility, equitable rights, and shared dignity.

But they reject the version of Ummah unity that is selective, hypocritical, and exclusionary.

What is demanded instead is an Ummah that begins by correcting the wrongs within: by recognizing the agency of excluded Muslims, by ensuring representation (for example, including Indian Muslims in OIC deliberations), by dismantling caste‐style hierarchies, by encouraging cross-caste marriages as a lived symbol of equality, and by ensuring that solidarity is not just turned outward but applied inward.

Until then, the rejection of Pakistan’s narrative by Pasmanda and low-caste Muslims—whether in India or Pakistan—is not a rejection of faith, but a rejection of being asked to wear unity as a hollow mask.

Real unity must include the oppressed, not merely summon their voices while denying them power.

If you like, I can prepare a version of this for Pakistani audiences, or include more incisive case studies or interviews.

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

Instead of hastily jumping to ideals of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood, perhaps we should first strive to humanize the Shia or Sunni next door—recognizing that they are as human as the Hindu in the neighboring town.

Blaming the West and the Cold War for the problem of Islamist terrorism and extremism is a convenient way of washing our hands of the issue. This narrative often ignores the fact that many Muslims themselves have normalised certain extremist ideas in everyday conversations. When a child is taught from an early age to view others as the other, some form of distance, hostility, and ultimately ghettoisation if not spatial , mental is bound to follow.

Let’s be clear: this ghettoisation is, to a large extent, self-imposed by Muslims who prefer to live “amongst their own.” But who is “their own”? This very idea contradicts the oft-repeated narrative that “we rejected Pakistan.” But what is Pakistan? It is not just a territory—it is an idea. An idea that Muslims of the subcontinent cannot coexist with non-Muslims, primarily Hindus, and therefore need a separate space to live and in essence explore our religiosity as a state and a community .

If that is so, how is ghettoisation any different? Isn’t it the same idea in practice—that Muslims cannot live among Hindus and must live solely among themselves? Various reasons are given for this self-imposed segregation—such as the reluctance of Hindus to rent or sell property to Muslims. But let us admit: in many so-called Hindu-dominated areas, Muslims do live—let’s not delve into their religiosity, though they often tend to be those who do not wear their religion on their sleeves, who have retracted religion to their homes, hearts, and mosques.

The claim that a Muslim cannot live among non-Muslims is a myth, and it ignores the broader sociological fact that segregation is not unique to Muslims. Other religious, ethnic, and linguistic groups in India also tend to cluster together, yet no one calls that oppression. People often prefer to live among those who share cultural and linguistic affinities. Why should that inherently be seen as exclusionary and wrong?

A large section of Muslims have migrated from Hindu-dominated areas to Muslim-dominated ones—such as Mumbra, Kurla, Mira Road in Maharashtra. These areas were initially chosen because they were on the periphery of Mumbai, relatively underpopulated, and affordable. Over the years, they transformed into Muslim-majority areas, derogatorily called “Mini Pakistan”—Mumbra in Maharashtra, Jamia Nagar in Delhi, Juhapura in Gujarat.

Initially, Muslims shifted to these spaces due to real threats of communal violence, but later, the migration became driven by perceived threats. However, a troubling development occurred: as Muslims moved into these spaces, they started cultivating a hyper-nationalistic and hyper-religious consciousness, and they didn’t see contradiction between the two, all the rage against the state and other communities got very conveniently channelised into fuelling sectarianism.

In these ghettoes, communalism of a specific intra-Muslim kind flourished—sectarianism became even more intense than Hindu-Muslim communalism. The Wahhabis, Barelvis, Deobandis, and Shias engaged in pitched ideological battles, throwing each other out of Islam every day and taking them in everyday to be kicked out the next and suddenly uniting with them in the face of the larger Hindu threat, This all happened in these very ghettoes. 

I feel that in the study of Indian Muslim ghettoes, how sub-divisions among Muslims also find expression in ghettoisation is often missed. For example, there are Shia ghettoes or, to be apolitical, Shia settlements within the larger Sunni ghettoes in India. Shias usually don’t reside among Sunnis, as every year Sunnis take offence at their mourning of Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed. Similarly, Ahl-e-Hadith to a large extent live near Ahle Hadees masjids, and the same is partially true for every major sect.

I remember a friend narrating an incident from Mumbra—the largest Muslim ghetto in India. He lived in one of its best buildings. During Muharram, some Sunnis in the building objected to the mourning rituals of Shias. Instead of asserting their right to peacefully observe their faith, some residents demanded that the Tablighi Jamaat’s halqas (religious circles) also be stopped.

In the same friend’s building, there was a man who never greeted others with salaam. When asked why, he replied, “I don’t greet kafirs,” referring to other Muslims who did not align with his sect. Let me reiterate this is one of the best buildings in the ghetto.

Recently, I met a man who recounted his experience at an Eid-ul-Adha prayer. The imam there declared that if the animal sacrifice was not performed by a Sunni Imam, it would be invalid. He also insisted that the skin of the sacrificed animal should be donated only to “Our Masjid.”

Let us not deceive ourselves: sectarianism is real and deep-seated within Muslim communities. Instead of hastily jumping to ideals of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood, perhaps we should first strive to humanize the Shia or Sunni next door—recognizing that they are as human as the Hindu in the neighboring town.

A humanist lens demands that we first dismantle our internal sectarianism before talking of communal harmony at large. Only when we see each other as human—across sects, faiths, and communities—can we hope to create a society not based on hatred but on larger and real Harmony.

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

Speaking at the official launch of the initiative at Velana International Airport, President Muizzu expressed deep appreciation for the Kingdom’s efforts in facilitating a seamless Hajj experience for Maldivian pilgrims for the very first time. The Makkah Route Initiative, part of Saudi Vision 2030 and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Guests Program, allows pilgrims to complete all pre-departure immigration, customs, and health procedures from their home country.

“This initiative is a true manifestation of Saudi Arabia’s leadership in serving Islam and Muslims,” Muizzu said. “Their leadership of the Islamic world represents an exemplary model of giving, unity, and service—not only at the two Holy Mosques but across the entire Islamic world.”

President Muizzu emphasized the significance of the moment for Maldivian pilgrims who, under the initiative, will now travel with greater ease and spiritual focus.

A Strategic Vision Rooted in Service

The Makkah Route Initiative, launched under the framework of Saudi Vision 2030, exemplifies the Kingdom’s strategic commitment to streamlining the pilgrimage experience. Pilgrims departing from participating countries benefit from a one-stop process that handles visa issuance, biometric data collection, customs clearance, and health screenings before departure—effectively eliminating the need for long immigration queues upon arrival in the Kingdom.

“This pioneering initiative, generously offered by Saudi Arabia under the wise leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, reinforces the Kingdom’s central role in promoting unity and cooperation within the Islamic world,” President Muizzu added.

He also expressed gratitude to the Saudi ministries of Interior, Hajj and Umrah, and all relevant authorities and organizations that contributed to implementing the initiative in the Maldives.

Global Expansion and Islamic Solidarity

The Maldives is now among eight countries included in the Makkah Route Initiative. The program is already operational in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkiye, Morocco, and the Ivory Coast. Its success has been widely acknowledged for enhancing the quality of services offered to pilgrims and reinforcing the Kingdom’s role as a leading spiritual and logistical hub for Hajj.

By ensuring a dignified and well-organized journey for the guests of Allah, the initiative underscores Saudi Arabia’s longstanding mission of serving pilgrims with compassion, precision, and innovation.

“We renew our great gratitude and appreciation for the leadership and people of Saudi Arabia,” Muizzu said. “We look forward to strengthening cooperation and joint action under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and His Royal Highness the Crown Prince for the betterment of the entire Islamic ummah.”

The Makkah Route Initiative stands as a hallmark of Saudi Arabia’s evolving approach to Hajj logistics—combining tradition, technology, and diplomacy. As it continues to expand, the initiative not only eases the pilgrimage journey but also embodies the Kingdom’s commitment to uniting and serving Muslims worldwide through thoughtful leadership and vision.

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.