A week after the November 10 car blast near Delhi’s Red Fort killed 13 people, an undated self-recorded video of the suspected bomber, Dr. Umar Mohammad alias Umar-un-Nabi, surfaced, offering investigators the first direct insight into his radicalisation.
In the video, Umar is heard discussing what he calls “martyrdom operations”, a term often used by terror groups to describe suicide attacks. Speaking in English with a noticeable accent, Umar says: “One of the very misunderstood concepts is the concept of what has been labelled as suicide bombing. It is a martyrdom operation… known in Islam. Now, there are multiple contradictions; there are multiple arguments that have been brought against it”. He further claims that a “martyrdom” operation is one in which a person assumes he will die at a particular time and place, and adds, “Don’t fear death.”
Security officials say the video reflects deliberate ideological indoctrination and strengthens their assessment that the Delhi blast was a planned suicide mission carried out by a highly educated professional linked to a larger “white-collar” terror network.
The New Face of Radicalisation: How English-Speaking Influencers Are Shaping Young Minds
In the age of YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, extremist ideology has found a powerful new vehicle and a new generation of “charismatic” preachers and influencers who speak fluent English, understand internet culture, and reach millions of impressionable young people worldwide. Gone are the days when radicalisation required physical travel to training camps or reliance on fiery sermons in mosques. Today’s extremist recruiters operate from sleek studios, polished podcasts, and viral social media feeds, packaging dangerous ideologies in language that resonates with disaffected youth in the West and beyond.
Move over Zakir Naik and his type of radical Islamist preachers, say hello to the new breed. In this article, we take a look at 4 such radical “influencers”.
Daniel Haqiqatjou: The American ‘Ideologue’
Daniel Haqiqatjou is an American-born Muslim commentator, founder of the “Muslim Skeptic” blog and Alsana Institute, known for promoting ultra-conservative Islamic views. With a background in philosophy and fluency in Western intellectual discourse, he frames himself as a defender of “authentic Islam” against liberalism, secularism, and modernity. His content, shared via YouTube, X, and his website, targets young Western Muslims who feel caught between faith and secular society.
While Haqiqatjou claims to counter “progressive Muslims,” his rhetoric veers into extremism. He has defended child marriage, justified rape in certain contexts, denied 9/11, spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and celebrated terror attacks against non-Muslims as acts of religious resistance, while also derogating Hindus and Hindu culture. His open hostility toward LGBTQ+ rights includes mocking victims, calling for the rejection of any inclusion of queer identities in Muslim spaces, and portraying queerness as a Western weapon against Islam. Critics argue his content normalizes views that lead to radicalization.
Unlike traditional firebrand clerics, Haqiqatjou uses philosophical arguments, critiques of liberalism, and online memes to frame extremism as rational. His polished, intellectual tone appeals to alienated youth seeking clarity and purpose. As a result, analysts warn he acts as a “gateway” to more militant ideologies, cloaking radical messages in the language of reason and authenticity.
Andrew and Tristan Tate: The Toxic Masculinity Pipeline
Andrew and Tristan Tate are British-American “influencers” who command vast online followings, especially among teenage boys through a potent mix of misogyny, hyper-masculinity, and anti-establishment rhetoric. Though not religious preachers, their content intersects with extremist spaces in dangerous ways. The brothers rose to fame via the “manosphere,” promoting dominance over women, rejection of feminism, and conspiracy theories about global elites. Andrew Tate, in particular, has been accused of grooming young followers into viewing women as inferior and glorifying violence.
In 2023, the Tates were charged in Romania with human trafficking, rape, and organized crime – allegations they deny. Despite this, their influence has only expanded, with millions of followers idolizing them as anti-system role models. Counter-terrorism experts have flagged Tate’s content as a “red flag” for radicalization. His messaging mirrors both far-right and Islamist extremism: glorifying violence, cultivating a sense of victimhood, and portraying liberal democracies as oppressive. Since his conversion to Islam, Tate has attracted audiences from multiple radical spheres, making him a unique and troubling figure in the online radicalization pipeline.
Mohammed Hijab: From YouTube Debates to Radical Influence
Mohammed Hijab, a British-Egyptian YouTuber and polemicist, is one of the UK’s most influential Islamist content creators. Known for his confrontational debates at Speaker’s Corner and aggressive online persona, Hijab uses YouTube, X, and Telegram to promote a hardline brand of Islam that targets atheists, Jews, Hindus, LGBTQ+ individuals, and liberal Muslims. Despite lacking formal Islamic scholarly credentials, his popularity among disaffected Muslim youth has grown rapidly.
Hijab was at the center of controversy during the 2022 Leicester riots, where his inflammatory rhetoric about Hindus was widely blamed for stoking violence. A UK court in 2025 upheld reports holding him responsible. He has also led anti-Semitic protests in Jewish neighborhoods and was banned from India in 2025 for supporting Kashmir separatism and inciting anti-India sentiment among Indian Muslims.
Critics warn Hijab plays a dangerous role in online radicalisation. His content amplifies sectarian grievances, spreads conspiracy theories, and promotes takfiri ideology, branding fellow Muslims as disbelievers. While positioning himself as a defender of Islam, his divisive messaging, delivered in polished English and social media-ready soundbites, serves as a gateway for youth toward more extreme ideologies. Authorities and analysts now view him as a rising radicalisation threat.
Dilly Hussain: The Islamist Journalist
Dilly Hussain is the deputy editor of 5 Pillars, a UK-based Muslim news site known for promoting Islamist apologetics, conspiracy theories, and inflammatory rhetoric targeting Jews, Hindus, and secular Muslims. While the platform claims to offer independent Muslim perspectives, it routinely publishes content that glorifies jihadist groups, spreads anti-Semitic narratives, and incites hatred against religious minorities. Hussain himself has publicly called for the harassment of Israelis in the UK, shared anti-Hindu screeds, and defended organizations with known terror links.
What makes 5 Pillars particularly influential is its polished, professional format that mimics legitimate journalism. This allows it to reach young Muslims, especially in areas like Leicester where sectarian tensions are rising, without triggering traditional extremist red flags. By presenting propaganda as news, it attracts youth seeking identity-affirming narratives while subtly pushing radical ideas.
Hussain’s messaging, delivered in articulate English and cloaked in the language of human rights and social justice, is dangerously effective. It reframes Western democracies as hostile, violence as justified resistance, and interfaith coexistence as betrayal, laying a clear path toward radicalization.
Anjem Choudary: The Godfather of British Extremism
If the others on this list represent the new wave of online radicalization, Anjem Choudary is the figure who pioneered the model. A British lawyer and co-founder of the now-banned al-Muhajiroun group, Choudary has spent decades recruiting young Muslims to extremist causes, inspiring dozens of terror attacks in the UK and abroad.
He has been linked to over 100 individuals involved in terrorism, including the 2005 London bombers, the killers of British soldier Lee Rigby, and numerous ISIS operatives.
Fluent in English and adept at navigating legal loopholes, Choudary operated openly for years – organizing rallies, giving interviews, and distributing propaganda while staying just within the law. He was convicted in 2016 for inviting support for ISIS and again in 2024 for directing a terrorist organization.
What made him uniquely dangerous was his grasp of media strategy. He used provocative slogans, public demonstrations, and cultivated media coverage to amplify his reach. He also mentored a new generation of English-speaking extremists who have adapted his methods for the social media age, thriving on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and encrypted platforms.
The New Ecosystem of Radicalization
What unites these figures is their mastery of modern communication. They understand that today’s youth consume content in short, digestible formats – viral clips, memes, podcast snippets and they have adapted extremist messaging accordingly.
Why It Works
Language & Style: Fluent, colloquial English paired with high production quality makes extremist content accessible, credible, and appealing to Western-born Muslims and global audiences.
Exploiting Grievances: Victim-mindset framing issues like Islamophobia, inequality, and foreign interventions are used to legitimize extremism as resistance.
Algorithm-Driven Reach: Social media platforms amplify extreme content through engagement-based algorithms, pushing users deeper into radical echo chambers.
Identity Engineering: Targets alienated youth by offering a heroic role in a cosmic war – defenders of a global faith.
Weaponizing Victimhood: Converts personal or communal frustrations into a belief that one is part of a genocidal conspiracy against Muslims.
Moral Inversion: Redefines universally condemned acts—like suicide bombing—as noble “martyrdom operations.”
Final Trigger: The culmination is often a video or directive, where violence is framed as proof of true faith either through direct orders or self-radicalization via endless propaganda loops.
The Unanswered Challenge
The failure to counter this threat is multifaceted. Social media algorithms profit from engagement, which extreme content generates. De-platforming individuals is a whack-a-mole game; they simply reappear on new sites or encrypted channels.
More critically, the counter-narrative is weak.
Traditional “deradicalization” programs are often outmatched by the slick, peer-driven, and emotionally resonant content produced by these influencers. They speak the language of the youth, while official messages often sound bureaucratic and disconnected.
The Delhi blast is not an isolated event. It is a symptom of a global crisis; a battle for the next generation’s mind that is being waged on smartphone screens, and one that, for now, the extremists are winning through a chillingly efficient digital assembly line of terror.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
A Propaganda Pamphlet To Be Used As A Toilet Paper: Christian-Supremacist USCIRF Peddles Fake Narrative On India Targeting Hindus
The latest United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report on India stands out for its deeply biased and one-sided representation of Hindu society and issues.
Titled “Systematic Religious Persecution in India,” the November 2025 issue update reads less as an objective assessment and more as a politically motivated dossier that ignores the foundational wounds of the Hindu community to paint a picture of unidirectional persecution.
A Telling Typo: “Barbi” Masjid And Historical Erasure
The report’s lack of rigor is immediately exposed by a fundamental error: it misspells the Babri Masjid as the “Barbi Masjid.” This is not a mere typographical slip but a symptom of a superficial understanding that undermines the report’s credibility from the outset.
More egregiously, the document dedicates extensive space to the 1992 demolition of the mosque, describing it as a “16th-century mosque” and detailing the subsequent violence. However, it completely erases the reason for the centuries-long dispute. There is not a single acknowledgment of the widely held Hindu belief, backed by archaeological evidence and historical texts, that the mosque was constructed by the Mughal commander Babur in the 16th century after demolishing a pre-existing temple marking the birthplace of Lord Rama.
The report’s coverage of the Babri Masjid demolition amplifies only one side of communal conflict, laying blame exclusively at the feet of Hindu organizations. What’s blatantly missing is any recognition of historic injustices faced by Hindus, whether it is the forced exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, systematic deprivations in education, or violence against temples and festivals. Such selective storytelling undermines the credibility of the entire document.
Pathologizing Hindu Identity
At the heart of the USCIRF’s critique lies a tendency to demonize Hindu identity and aspirations. The report frames legitimate concerns such as the reclamation of temple spaces, prevention of forced conversions, and protection of indigenous cultural practices as inherently “extremist.” It conveniently ignores centuries of historical trauma, destruction of sacred spaces, and attempts at preserving a threatened civilization. By labeling movements for Hindu renaissance as exclusionary, the report erases the community’s right to pursue justice and self-respect.
One-Sided Critique of Secularism
According to USCIRF, India’s secularism fails because it does not strictly separate religion from the state. Yet, in practice, minorities receive extensive state support, whether through scholarships, separate educational boards, or official control of land and funds for religious institutions. Such privileges and protections for non-Hindu groups are never acknowledged, revealing the asymmetry in the report’s analysis.
Misrepresentation of Anti-Conversion Laws
India’s anti-conversion laws, vilified by the report, are the result of decades of aggressive, often coercive proselytization targeting vulnerable Hindu communities. Ignoring the ethical dilemma posed by incentivized conversions, USCIRF instead recasts genuine protective measures as persecution, missing the entire context behind these laws.
Textbook History Reforms Distorted
Efforts to revise school curricula to reflect a more balanced history are dismissed as communal, despite the fact that many textbooks marginalize indigenous figures and distort civilizational contributions. The report thus stifles the legitimate desire of Hindus to reclaim their narrative from decades of exclusion.
Stereotyping Hindu Organizations
The broad-brush characterization of the RSS and BJP as inherently violent and intolerant flies in the face of their vast charitable and social work, including education, healthcare, and disaster relief. Demonizing organizations that millions of Hindus consider essential to nation-building reveals either ignorance or a deliberate intent to malign.
Neglect of Demographic and Security Concerns
Measures like the CAA/NRC are targeted as exclusionary tactics in the report. From a Hindu perspective, these laws represent efforts to secure cultural survival and deal with illegal demographic changes, not vague xenophobic impulses.
Underplaying Reform and Social Progress
References to caste-based conversions mischaracterize the problems and ignore vigorous ongoing reforms in temple access, reservation policies, and community outreach that are advancing Hindu social justice – initiatives rarely recognized by the report.
Denial of Hindu Victimhood
Perhaps most disturbing is the persistent framing of Hindus exclusively as aggressors, not as victims of violence, discrimination, or targeted policies. This erasure perpetuates a narrative that dehumanizes the majority, making it harder for real dialogue or reconciliation.
External Recommendations, Internal Harm
Calling for the US to designate India a “Country of Particular Concern,” the USCIRF perpetuates neo-colonial intervention and disregards India’s sovereignty and unique context. Such recommendations only fuel division and undermine confidence in international institutions.
USCIRF’s Dubious Credibility And Extremist Alignments
Adding to its long record of bias, USCIRF’s credibility is further undermined by revelations about its own leadership. Several commissioners have been linked to hardline Christian-supremacist groups, while others maintain associations with Islamic organizations accused of supporting extremist agendas. The Commission has even positioned itself as a defender of Khalistani separatists, issuing statements that effectively endorse the rhetoric of individuals tied to terror networks. In its reaction to the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada, USCIRF went so far as to accuse India of “transnational repression,” echoing separatist propaganda rather than presenting evidence-based analysis. These ideological entanglements expose USCIRF as a politically motivated body wielding the language of “religious freedom” to target India while shielding extremist elements it finds ideologically convenient.
Last Word
The USCIRF’s report is a glaring example of shoddy scholarship marred by deep-rooted bias. Its selective use of facts, refusal to engage Hindu perspectives, and over-reliance on politicized NGOs reveal an intent to pressurize rather than empower. For any credible international body, accuracy, balance, and context must come first. The Hindu community and the wider world deserve better than this – an honest, fact-based discussion about pluralism, justice, and human rights in India.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.