As Imam Muhsin famously said, “The heart is not big enough to contain both fear and faith. You choose.” He chose faith, and was willing to be true to his interpretation of Islamic teachings, despite years of experiencing threats of violence from conservative extremists. Through his teachings and queer-affirming Al-Ghurbaah Mosque in South Africa, he inspired Muslims locally and globally to live authentic lives without abandoning their faith.

In addition to our gratitude for his work overall, we at MPV particularly want to acknowledge his contributions to our advocacy efforts in Urdu, including delivering this lecture to Urdu-speaking audiences.

While there is much we don’t yet know about the circumstances of his death, we know too well the many death threats Imam Muhsin had received over the years. We are disgusted by those condoning his murder and it is this theology of hate and of homophobia that has resulted in the intense threats on his life. We join Muslims and allies around the world in calling for the South African government to leave no stone unturned in investigating the motivation for his murder, and as a possible hate crime.

The attack on Imam Muhsin comes at a chilling time of increased violence against LGTBQ people all around the world, including in the US, and we call on Muslims to show compassion and support for this increasingly vulnerable population.

We join Muslims and allies worldwide in offering prayers for justice and healing for all of those impacted by this horrific killing. We call on all Muslims, regardless of our political and religious differences, to build a culture of tolerance and curiosity for various interpretations of Islam. At MPV, we will continue to advocate for freedom of religion for all, and freedom from persecution for all, demonstrating the beauty of Islam just as Imam Muhsin did.

A Statement from the Colleagues of Imam Muhsin at the Center for Contemporary Islam at University of Cape Town.

Indeed to Allah we belong, and indeed, to Allah we return. We are reeling from the targeted assassination of Imam Muhsin Hendricks, the first openly queer Imam in South Africa. Imam Muhsin was a pioneer in the rights of queer Muslims having previously led The Inner Circle and more recently the Al-Ghurbaah Foundation. He was recognised as a global leader who created a space to reconcile Islam, faith and sexual diversity, and provided a refuge for young queer Muslims that had been rejected in their homes. Muhsin courageously tracked a path of religious inclusivity and a vision of Islam as a home for all.

His theology was a liberation theology: God is a God of radical love and justice for all human beings. The safe space created by his work brought relief beyond the community of queer Muslims, extending to refugees, people who were homeless, those marginalised without community and belonging, for whom he provided a space of inclusion.

Despite this, we are also reeling from the ways in which some Muslims are condoning his assassination on social media. The compounded horror of such violence and brutality has brought into sharp focus the intense homophobia permeating the Muslim community.

This is a time for each of us as individuals, as well as in our collectives, whether in mosques, in community organisations, in our Palestinian solidarity formations, to deeply reflect on the ways in which our work for justice must be all-inclusive, and the right to dignity is unconditional.

In the last two years we have witnessed a genocide enabled by the language of dehumanisation of Palestinian people. It is the same underlying logic of dehumanisation that enables a targeted assassination of a queer human being who stood up for justice. We must recognise that when we are silent in the face of homophobia, patriarchy and

Zionism, we enable not only violent systems, but systems that perpetuate violence and death. We are both ethically and spiritually accountable.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sent as “Rahmatan li-l-Aalamin,” a mercy to all worlds, everywhere in all times. Every human being deserves justice and dignity.

Imam Muhsin has completed his work on this earth; it is for us to begin ours. Let us have the difficult conversations, let us grow seeds of love, justice and compassion. Let us truly engage what it might be to follow the sunnah of the Mercy to the worlds.

We salute your courage, Shaheed (Martyr) Imam Muhsin. May your soul be embraced in love and compassion by Allah. Dear contented soul, return to your Lord; may your Lord be pleased with you, may you be pleased with your Lord. May the work of justice, love and inclusivity that you worked so hard towards be realised. May we grow our communities in the work of justice, love and all-inclusive dignity.

The post Progressive Muslims condemn the assassination in South Africa of the world’s first gay Imam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A humanitarian tragedy in the name of deportation

In a horrifying display of inhumanity, 104 Indian migrants were deported from the United States on a military aircraft with their hands and legs shackled throughout the 40-hour-long journey back to India.

The manner in which these individuals were treated, forced to remain in restraints even while eating has sparked widespread outrage, not just in India but across the global human rights community. The visuals of these migrants, including women, being led in chains onto a U.S. military aircraft highlight the sheer disregard for basic human dignity.

These deportations were carried out as part of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Border Patrol Chief even shared a video on social media boasting about the successful deportation of illegal aliens, a move that further inflamed tensions in India.

USBP and partners successfully returned illegal aliens to India, marking the farthest deportation flight yet using military transport. This mission underscores our commitment to enforcing immigration laws and ensuring swift removals.

If you cross illegally, you will be removed. pic.twitter.com/WW4OWYzWOf

— Chief Michael W. Banks (@USBPChief) February 5, 2025

While deportations are a sovereign right of any nation, their execution must comply with humanitarian standards. The blatant criminalisation of these migrants, who left India in search of a better future, reflects a dangerous trend of treating economic migrants as hardened criminals.

India’s legal recourse under international law and human rights violations

The forced deportation of Indian migrants under inhumane conditions raises serious concerns under international human rights law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), particularly Article 5, explicitly prohibits “torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by both India and the U.S., similarly prohibits such treatment under Article 7. The shackling of Indian deportees throughout their journey amounts to cruel and degrading treatment, which is in direct violation of these international norms (UDHR, ICCPR).

Additionally, the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), though not ratified by the U.S., establishes that no individual should be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, including during deportation. The treatment of Indian deportees also violates the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which prohibits arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, and inhumane deportation procedures.

Legal experts have pointed out that India has the right to lodge a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee over the manner in which its citizens were deported. International law allows a country to challenge the mistreatment of its nationals abroad, and given the clear violation of human rights in this case, India could formally seek redress through the UN system. However, the Modi government has taken no such action, further underscoring its failure to defend Indian citizens against inhumane treatment by foreign nations.

Colombia’s bold stand vs. India’s silence

If there was ever a moment that underscored the Modi government’s diplomatic weakness, it is this. Colombia, a much smaller country in terms of geopolitical influence, demonstrated how a nation should stand up for its citizens.

When the United States attempted to deport Colombian nationals under similar conditions, the South American nation took a firm stand: it refused to accept U.S. military flights carrying deportees.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro strongly condemned the treatment of his citizens and ensured their dignified return by dispatching a presidential plane to pick them up. In doing so, Colombia made it clear that it would not allow its nationals to be treated as criminals.

Contrast this with India, where Modi’s government has not even raised a strong diplomatic objection. While the Colombian government exerted its sovereignty and protected its people, India remained passive, allowing the United States to transport its nationals in degrading conditions (Economic Times).

Opposition’s criticism of Modi’s failure

As soon as the images of the shackled deportees surfaced, opposition parties in India staged dramatic protests. Congress MPs, including Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, appeared in Parliament wearing handcuffs to symbolize the shame and humiliation India suffered due to Modi’s inaction. Shashi Tharoor, a vocal critic of the government, stated that while India must accept its nationals back, it should never tolerate such degrading treatment by a foreign nation. Other opposition leaders, including Asaduddin Owaisi and Akhilesh Yadav, slammed the government for its failure to ensure dignified deportation.

“For 40 hours, we were handcuffed, our feet tied with chains and we were not allowed to move an inch from our seats. It was worse than hell”: Harvinder Singh

Prime Minister, listen to this man’s pain. Indians deserve Dignity and Humanity, NOT Handcuffs. pic.twitter.com/WUOwUrCvMB

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) February 6, 2025

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, former law minister also condemned Modi’s handling of the situation. Swamy pointed out that Modi’s foreign policy is more focused on personal optics and friendships with Western leaders than on protecting the dignity of Indian citizens abroad. He further stated that the government’s failure to act decisively will only embolden other nations to treat Indians with similar disregard.

Dr. Swamy tweeted: “Will Trump answer? Modi has no guts to demand an answer on the way they were sent back to India—like goats. Trump could have asked our Embassy in Washington to take back illegal Indian immigrants. Modi is a coward. He cannot even stand up to Maldives and Nepal, let alone China.”

In another tweet, he said: “The US govt led by Trump has been serially insulting India. Yet Modi is craving to go to the US and crawl before Trump. I demand Modi postpone his visit to the US in protest of the insults, otherwise Parliament should censure him for going against our nation’s interest.”

A ‘Vishwaguru’ that fails its own people

The Modi government has frequently claimed that India is a rising global power, a Vishwaguru that commands respect internationally. However, this incident proves otherwise. When a leader fails to ensure the basic dignity of their own citizens, all claims of global leadership ring hollow.

While Colombia and Brazil rejected inhumane deportation flights, India has remained silent and submissive. Modi’s government did not even issue a strong diplomatic protest, let alone demand an apology or a policy change from the U.S.

If Colombia, a nation with significantly fewer resources and influence than India, can ensure respect for its citizens, why can’t Modi? The answer is clear: under this government, nationalism is only a political slogan, not a principle applied in real-world diplomacy.

As deported Indians return home in chains, the question that haunts every citizen is this: Is this the global leadership Modi promised?

Related:

US Supreme Court ruling means immigrants can be detained indefinitely

US judge blocks Trump administration’s move to end ‘Dreamers’ program

The post Modi government silent as US deports Indians in chains appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This cycle of labour exploitation and deportation is not an accident, it is a deliberate system designed to suppress wages and prevent labour rights from strengthening. By keeping immigrant labour precarious, either through restrictive visa policies, lack of legal protections, or the constant threat of deportation, wages are kept low, and workers unable to demand better conditions.

Employers benefit from this insecurity, extracting maximum productivity while avoiding obligations, such as fair wages, healthcare, or job security. The state enforces this system by criminalising migrants when they attempt to establish stability, ensuring they remain trapped in a cycle of dependence and vulnerability.

The US deportation system is far from being a neutral enforcement mechanism, it is an entrenched economic and political strategy that serves the interests of the ruling elite while devastating working-class migrants. The label of “illegal immigrant” is a carefully constructed political tool, designed not only to stoke nationalist anxieties but also to distract from structural economic failures and opportunistic governance. Behind the rhetoric of border security lies a ruthless machinery of exploitation, profit-making, and systemic dehumanisation.

Deportations as Political Distraction

When the US experiences economic downturns or political crises, immigrants become easy scapegoats. Deportations increase, and the government frames the issue as one of national security rather than economic dependency. This allows policymakers to deflect attention from failing economic policies, corporate tax breaks, and widening income inequality.

The current US administration has proposed invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify mass deportations without due process. The idea of “border security” is thus weaponised not to protect national interests but to reinforce racial and economic hierarchies. The true beneficiaries of these policies are not the working-class American citizens they claim to protect, but the corporate elite who profit from the precarious conditions of undocumented labour.

Mass deportations have become a multi-billion-dollar industry. Private detention centres, such as those run by CoreCivic and GEO Group, receive lucrative government contracts to house migrants before deportation. The longer a person is detained, the more profit these companies make. These facilities are notorious for inhumane conditions, overcrowding, lack of medical care, and reports of abuse are rampant.

The expansion of the deportation-industrial complex ensures that detention is prolonged unnecessarily, turning migrant suffering into a business model. The involvement of private corporations in immigration enforcement means that deportation policies are increasingly dictated by profit motives rather than human rights or legal due process.

Violations of International Human Rights Law

The recent use of military aircraft to deport migrants, such as the C-17 military plane carrying Ecuadorians, signals a dangerous shift toward the full militarisation of immigration enforcement. Deportations are no longer an administrative procedure but are now part of a security-state apparatus.

By treating migrants as enemy combatants rather than civilians, this policy erodes the distinction between civil governance and military operations. The use of military aircraft to deport vulnerable people sends a clear message to immigrant communities: their presence is not just unwanted, it is treated as a national threat.

Theatrical deportations, including mass removals carried out in highly publicised raids, serve as propaganda to appeal to Far-Right nationalist voters. Ramping up deportations through cruel and theatrical means helps convert civil deportations into a political spectacle, reinforcing the perception that immigrants are responsible for social and economic woes.

The deportation process has become increasingly violent and degrading, with migrants being handcuffed, shackled, and treated like criminals. Reports detail the harrowing experiences of deportees, 104 Indian migrants deported on a US military flight to Amritsar were chained for the entire 40-hour journey.

These actions violate multiple international agreements:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5).

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment.

• The UN Convention against Torture (CAT) condemns acts of state-sanctioned cruelty.

Despite being a signatory to these agreements, the US blatantly disregards its commitments in its deportation policies. The fact that migrants are shackled, denied medical care, and subjected to prolonged detention before deportation makes it clear that these are not administrative procedures but calculated acts of oppression.

India’s Silence

One of the most disturbing aspects of the current deportation crisis is the silence of the Indian government despite blatant human rights violations against its own people. Despite Indian migrants being subjected to inhumane treatment, chained, and shackled during deportations, the Indian state has failed to issue a strong response.

While Mexico, Ecuador, and other nations have protested the treatment of their deported citizens, India remains passive. The deportation of 104 Indian migrants under brutal conditions was met with no official protest, no diplomatic pressure, and no attempt to hold the US accountable.

India’s silence on the brutal deportation practices of the US stems from a combination of geopolitical, economic, and political factors. The Narendra Modi government has strategically aligned itself with US interests, particularly in countering China, and is unwilling to risk this alliance by challenging Washington on human rights violations against Indian migrants. This diplomatic calculus prioritises strategic partnerships over the welfare of its own citizens abroad.

Additionally, the Indian government exhibits selective outrage, raising concerns over issues affecting students and high-skilled professionals in Western countries while ignoring the plight of working-class migrants, whose contributions are often undervalued. This reflects a deeper diaspora hypocrisy, where India celebrates its global diaspora when it benefits economic and political interests such as remittances and soft power but abandons vulnerable migrants when they face mistreatment.

By refusing to challenge the US on its inhumane deportation policies, India tacitly endorses the dehumanisation of its own people. This silence sends a clear message: Indian migrants are valuable when they send money back home, but disposable when they need protection.

A Human Rights Crisis

The weaponisation of deportation is not just a US issue, it is part of a global system of inequality. The same neoliberal policies that force people to migrate in search of work are the ones that criminalise them once they arrive. If deportations continue under such conditions, they will set a dangerous precedent. Other nations may adopt similar policies, making the mass expulsion of marginalised communities a norm rather than an exception.

The current US deportation policy is a brutal manifestation of racial capitalism, where migrants are exploited when needed and discarded when convenient. These policies are not about enforcing the law; these are about control, profit, and political power. If these deportations go unchallenged, they will only become more extreme. The fight against them is not just about immigration, it is about defending the very principles of human dignity and justice in an increasingly hostile world.

The international community must take a stand. Governments of affected nations must refuse to remain passive. Human rights organisations must challenge these violations on the global stage. Most importantly, movements for migrant justice must continue to resist.

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post How US Uses, Exploits and Discards Migrant Labour! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This paper argues that the Quran, the primary source of Islamic teachings, does not support the harsh and punitive blasphemy laws enacted in many Muslim nations. Instead, the Quran emphasizes patience, forgiveness, and leaving judgment to God. By taking a leaf out of the Quran’s book, this paper advocates for the abandonment of such laws in favour of a more Quranically aligned approach to addressing blasphemy.

Blasphemy Laws in Muslim-Majority Countries

As of recent data, numerous Muslim-majority countries have enacted blasphemy laws, though their enforcement and severity vary widely. Countries with blasphemy laws include Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria (in some northern states with Sharia law), Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey (though recently debated and modified), United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Pakistan has some of the strictest blasphemy laws, with penalties including the death penalty for insulting Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. Saudi Arabia and Iran enforce harsh penalties for blasphemy under Sharia law. In countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, blasphemy laws are selectively applied, often targeting religious minorities. This patchwork of enforcement creates a legal minefield where individuals can be caught in a web of ambiguity and oppression. In Turkey, blasphemy laws were technically abolished in 1924, but restrictions on insulting religious values remain under other legal provisions. In Nigeria, blasphemy laws are primarily enforced in northern states where Sharia law is implemented.

Blasphemy laws in these countries are often rooted in Islamic jurisprudence and are used to protect religious sentiments, particularly those related to Islam. However, these laws are frequently criticized for being used to suppress freedom of expression, target religious minorities, or settle personal vendettas. Rather than upholding the sanctity of faith, such laws often become a double-edged sword, cutting deeper into the fabric of justice and fairness.

Hadiths Cited in Support of Blasphemy Laws:

Several hadiths are often cited to justify harsh punishments for blasphemy. Below are some examples:

“Whoever insults the Messenger of God, he should be killed.” (Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 83, Hadith 37; Muslim, Book 16, Hadith 4157)

“If anyone abuses God, the Exalted, or abuses the Messenger of God, or abuses the Ka’bah, or abuses the sacred months, the punishment for him is to be killed, unless he repents.” (Abu Dawud, Book 40, Hadith 4595; Ibn Majah, Book 20, Hadith 2636)

A blind man killed his slave-mother for repeatedly insulting the Prophet. When the matter was brought to the Prophet, he said, “If he had come to me, I would have given him a more severe punishment than that.” (Abu Dawud, Book 40, Hadith 4593; Ibn Majah, Book 20, Hadith 2634)

Reformed scholars question the authenticity or reliability of certain hadiths used to justify blasphemy laws. They argue that not all hadiths are of equal strength, and some may have been fabricated or misinterpreted over time. They use the science of hadith criticism (Ilm al-Rijal) to evaluate the chains of narration (isnad) and the content (matn) of hadiths. In essence, they are separating the wheat from the chaff, ensuring that only the most authentic sources inform legal and theological discourse.

Quranic Perspective on Blasphemy

The Quran does not explicitly prescribe a specific worldly punishment for blasphemy. Instead, it emphasizes patience, forgiveness, and leaving judgment to God. Several Quranic verses provide guidance on how to respond to blasphemy, emphasizing the importance of restraint, respect, and wisdom.

In the face of offensive discourse, the Quran advises believers to exercise patience and avoid conflict. As stated in Quran 6:68, “When you see those who engage in [offensive] discourse concerning Our verses, then turn away from them until they enter into another conversation. And if Satan should cause you to forget, then do not remain after the reminder with the wrongdoing people.” This verse suggests that engaging with blasphemers is like adding fuel to the fire; instead, one should walk away and let the storm pass.

The Quran also emphasizes the importance of leaving judgment to God. In Quran 42:40, it is stated, “The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with God. Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.” This verse encourages believers to take the high road, leaving vengeance in God’s hands.

Furthermore, the Quran prohibits insulting others’ beliefs, emphasizing that respect is a two-way street. As stated in Quran 6:108, “Do not insult those they invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge.” This verse underscores the importance of treating others with dignity and respect, even if they hold different beliefs.

While the Quran does highlight the gravity of blasphemy, it emphasizes divine punishment rather than human retribution. In Quran 9:61-62, it is stated, “Among them are those who abuse the Prophet and say, ‘He is an ear.’ … Those who abuse the Messenger of God—for them is a painful punishment.” This verse reinforces the idea that ultimate justice rests with God, not humans.

Finally, the Quran provides guidance on how to engage with others in a respectful and wise manner. In Quran 16:125, it is stated, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” This verse advocates a diplomatic approach, proving that honey catches more flies than vinegar. By embracing these Quranic principles, believers can promote a culture of respect, tolerance, and wisdom.

Responsible Freedom of Expression in Islam

The Quran emphasizes the importance of responsible freedom of expression, outlining etiquette for its exercise. Believers are encouraged to engage in respectful discussions, arguing “in the best way” (29:46) and “most courteous way” (16:125). The Quran warns against making unfounded assumptions, speaking ill of others, or spreading rumours without verification (49:12). It also stresses the need to verify information before sharing it, to avoid harming others (49:6).

The Quran highlights the value of thoughtful, evidence-based opinions expressed courteously, likening them to a fruitful tree (14:24-25). Conversely, it condemns abusive language, including slander, libel, and insults, warning believers not to revile others or use offensive language (6:108, 49:11). Ultimately, the Quran establishes both legal and moral boundaries for freedom of expression, promoting responsible communication and respect for others.

However, the Quran’s moral guidelines for expression are primarily directed at believers, with no equivalent expectations placed on non-believers. This raises questions about blasphemy, a concept historically intertwined with apostasy, heresy, and rejection of God and revelation in Islamic tradition.

As Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s book ‘Freedom of Expression in Islam’ demonstrates, juristic debates on these issues are complex and often opaque (Kamali, p.218–21). Historically, public opinions were categorized into three types: praiseworthy, blame-worthy, or doubtful. Praiseworthy opinions praised the Quran and Prophet Muhammad, while blame-worthy opinions were deemed blasphemous, seditious, or heretical.

Some Muslims understand Islam as a coercive system that dictates piety by force and eradicates impiety, apostasy, or blasphemy. However, this approach is not compatible with modern liberal standards. In fact, the Quran offers a more nuanced response to blasphemy, one that prioritizes responsible expression and respect for others.

In contrast, some Islamic countries continue to impose harsh punishments for blasphemy, including death. This approach is at odds with modern human rights standards and the principles of responsible freedom of expression outlined in the Quran.

As Kamali notes, the punishment for blasphemy in Islamic law is based on certain narratives in the Hadith literature that are open to interpretation (Kamali, p. 249). These narratives can be understood in their historical context, rather than as a basis for modern laws and punishments.

In conclusion, responsible freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of Islam, one that emphasizes respect, courtesy, and thoughtful communication. While some Islamic countries continue to impose harsh punishments for blasphemy, the Quran offers a more nuanced approach that prioritizes responsible expression and respect for others.

As noted by Ziauddin Sardar, a renowned British scholar, writer, and cultural critic, the debate surrounding blasphemy laws and Islam is succinctly captured in his insightful commentary, which highlights the complexities and nuances of this critical issue:

 “Classical juristic opinion is at odds, as it frequently seems to be, with the spirit and teachings of the Quran. I find the whole idea of blasphemy irrelevant to Islam. Either you are free to believe and not believe or you are not. If there is no compulsion in religion then all opinions can be expressed feely, including those which cause offence to religious people. The believers will show respect and use respectful language toward God and His Prophet simply because they are believers. Non-believers, by definition, take a rejectionist attitude to both. We should not be too surprised if non-believers resort to the use of what the believers would regard as unbecoming language towards sacred religious notions. The Quran expects this; and this is how the real world behaves.” God, ‘the Self-Sufficient One’, in His Majesty, is hardly going to be bothered if a few insults are hurled at him. He can certainly look after himself: ‘the Most Excellent Names belong to God: use them to call on Him, and keep away from those who abuse them—they will be requited for what they do’ (7:180). In other words, punishment or reward for those who abuse God lies with God; we have nothing to do with it and are required simply to stay away from such matters. As for the Prophet himself, he was constantly abused and blasphemed, in everyday words as well as poetry, during the period of his prophethood, particularly his time in Mecca. He took no action against those who ridiculed him. If the Prophet himself did not penalise those who uttered profanities against him, who are we to act on his behalf? Of course, we, the believers, have the right to be offended. But we have no right to silence our critics. To do so would be to act against the clear injunctions of the Quran and the example set by the Prophet. In matters of blasphemy, unfair criticism or expression of serious differences, the Quran expects the believers to show moral restraint, and not to be unnecessarily oversensitive. When the differences become truly irreconcilable, the Quran asks the believers to live and let live: Say ‘O unbelievers! I do not worship what you worship; nor do you worship what I worship; nor will I ever worship what you worship; nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your religion and I have mine.’ (109:1–6)” (Sardar, p.339-340).

Blasphemy: A Call for Reform and Justice

The Quranic emphasis on patience and forgiveness is unmistakable. In the face of insults or mockery, believers are encouraged to respond with restraint, avoiding conflict whenever possible. As the Quran teaches, justice must be served on a silver platter of mercy, not an iron fist of punishment.

Notably, the Quran does not prescribe specific worldly punishments for blasphemy. Instead, it emphasizes divine retribution in the afterlife, leaving humans to focus on forgiveness and compassion. This approach is in stark contrast to the harsh punishments often meted out in the name of blasphemy laws.

These laws often violate fundamental human rights, silencing dissent and stifling growth and progress. Silencing dissent is akin to caging the wind – it is a futile endeavour that ultimately undermines the very fabric of society.

Furthermore, blasphemy laws are frequently misused, twisted to serve personal grudges rather than uphold justice. A law that can be manipulated in such a way is no law at all.

Ultimately, the Quran promotes a culture of mutual respect and tolerance. Muslims are prohibited from insulting the beliefs of others (Quran 6:108), recognizing that respect is a bridge built from both sides. By embracing this ethos, we can create a more harmonious and inclusive society, where freedom of expression is cherished and human rights are protected.

Reconciling Faith and Freedom in the Muslim World

The Quranic approach to blasphemy offers a profound lesson in patience, forgiveness, and humility. By leaving judgment to God, Muslims can focus on promoting a culture of tolerance, mutual respect, and compassion. This approach not only aligns with the Quranic spirit but also protects human rights and dignity.

As Muslim nations navigate the complexities of blasphemy laws, they have an opportunity to turn over a new leaf. By embracing the Quranic values of mercy, forgiveness, and coexistence, they can create a more just and harmonious society. As the metaphor goes, true faith is like a candle—it should illuminate the path, not consume everything in its path. By choosing the path of tolerance and understanding, Muslims can create a brighter future for all.

Bibliography

Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, Freedom of Expression in Islam, Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing, 1994

Sardar, Ziauddin, Reading the Quran: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, New York, Oxford University Press, 2011

—

V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Why Muslim Nations Should Abandon Blasphemy Laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are the countries wherein this monster is all set to eat violently those who nurtured it for their own vested interests. This left doing politics, normal living, and meeting people all at risk. And thousands of children, the elderly, and young people have fallen victim to it.

Media and scholarly, academic reports reveal that Muslims living in the West too are now influenced by their preachers and imams. They have begun to believe in sectarian conflicts as well as emotional slogans like a revival of the old Caliphate. Amazingly, thousands of youth born and bred in the West were recruited or joined the forces of the fake Caliphate established by the notorious Abubakar Al-Baghdadi a decade ago?

Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, but what is the condition of Islamic ideology there? What is the sanctity of a human life? From time to time, a fanatic mob would rise, blaming a person for blasphemy. No matter whether he is a Muslim or non-Muslim, it would kill him in cold blood or often burn him alive. The police simply watch the spectacle, indeed, occasionally participate in the crime. Later, religious people would start justifying the heinous act by citing old jurists and their fatwas. And secularists and liberals would start condemning the act. The administration remains deaf and dumb. Judiciary very seldom takes suo motu cognizance. After a few days, the matter is normalised.  The cruel bloody mob then goes out in search of another prey. All businesses of life and religion continue to thrive!

The killing of the then Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer by his own official bodyguard a few years ago on fake charges of blasphemy is a case in point. The dastardly killer was then turned into a saint! The presumably educated advocates in Pakistani courts threw rose petals over him when he came to face the charges of murder. After his execution, his grave has been turned into a shrine. Thousands visit it regularly to pay their obeisance. What Fanaticism!

While the West is thinking of building colonies on Mars and China is conquering new vistas with AI, what is the favourite pastime of the great Muslim ulama, clergy and religious scholars of Pakistan and India, indeed even Bangladesh?  It is to make ordinary Muslims blindly believe in unverifiable predictions about the appearance of the supposed Imam Mahdi. These people are saying, day in and day out, particularly sice the genocide of Palestinians started, that Dajjal is about to come out and Mahdi has to appear and after that Jesus will come and the rule of Islam is just about to be established on the whole planet.

Religious Muslims are generally simple-minded and naive. They believe in these myths. They do not feel the need to move forward in the world. Our task should be to promote science and technology, indeed first create a scientific temperament among the rank and file of Muslims.

 History shows that this situation will finally lead to the point when the political leaders will have to resort to fighting the monster of their own making as Pakistan is compelled to do with the Taliban now. Muslim clergy and ulama in the Indian subcontinent must also repent and take a vow never to use religion for political purposes. If Muslims come to this point, they must put before them some hard facts to eradicate extremism from its foundation.

First, this demon of extremism did not come down from heaven directly. It is a cherished baby born of religious thought which is taught and studied in our religious schools and madrasas under different titles, such as the enforcement of Sharia, Jihad and eradication of infidelity, polytheism, apostasy, etc. Radicalised people and extremist movements draw inspiration from this traditional theology. They propagate it for their dastardly purposes. This prominent religious thought and its political interpretations popularly called Political Islam have been logically criticized by some thinkers and brilliant minds of Islam like Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Javed Ahmad Ghamdi. Had there not been stirring uproar, protests, and threats from ulama in the face of scientific reasoning, certainly the thought of these thinkers would have changed people’s minds and popular narratives.

Now to counter the religious radicalism in Muslim societies we have to develop a counter-narrative to the propagated traditional religious thought. Still, it is unfortunate and tragic for Muslim societies that violence and extremism prevail to protect religion and preserve Sharia.

Unfortunately, the culture of disagreement with politeness and respect has not yet developed. These situations require us to be sensitive to freedom of opinion in religious ideas and thinking. And to be frank, our clerics and religious preachers exert a policy of pressure to prevent the freedom to express free opinion. If they want to reveal the error to those who disagree with them, they can do so in an open way by resorting to the weapon of knowledge and reasoning. The world of knowledge does not accommodate compulsion, protests, uproar, and tyranny. It is a counter-narrative of popular religious thought presented by the likes of Mr. Ghamidi that alone can reform the situation in the Muslim community, not propaganda of secularism or anti-religionism. Iqbal the poet and philosopher tried a century ago to draw our attention to the same truth in his lectures on the need for reconstruction of religious thought that he delivered in Aligarh and elsewhere. Sir Syed and his school of thought made the same effort.

Second, in secular fields, we do not allow someone to establish institutions to graduate children and boys as doctors, engineers, or skilled in any division and department of science and arts. This cannot be done without giving Muslim children general education for twelve years or so. But children and young people are trained as religious scholars in madrasas and centres of religious learning. These madrasas close the door of modern learning on them altogether and play with their future lives. Some of them could have been doctors, some of them engineers, poets, writers, photographers, etc.. But these madrasas, regardless of their aptitude, taste, inclinations, or qualifications, make great efforts to make them religious scholars only and deprive them of all opportunities to choose an area of science and art of their own choice.  They cut their ties to society and made them aliens in their own societies by depriving them of general public education for twelve years. Therefore, it has become necessary to prohibit religious schools, like all other institutes of specialized education, from interfering with a student without giving him general education up to 12 grade.

We can say with confidence that this one step alone will change the current situation created by the institutes of religious education. As Founder-Editor of NewAgeIslam.com, Mr. Sultan Shahin told the UN Human Rights Council at Geneva some time ago, madrasa education is the biggest violation of the human rights of Muslim children. Every child has the right to acquire general education before going in  for specialisation in any field. If we don’t give our children medical or engineering education at the age of five, then why burden them with theology at such a tender age. Young children and adolescents need general education first. They should have the choice to go in for any specialisation they want.

Thirdly, it is necessary to end the dominance of clerics and preachers of hate in masjids and mosques. They generally use Friday pulpits for their vested interests in Muslim societies. If we don’t do this, we cannot escape extremism. Who does not know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) established a Sunnah regarding the Friday prayer? It was that the Imam (head of government) or whoever he appoints is entitled to lead the Friday prayer and deliver the sermon. No one else is permitted to use this pulpit unless they have this specific instruction from the ruler.

However, throughout the decadent age, Muslim monarchs typically lacked the necessary tools to perform this function. They gave the Friday pulpits to the clergy and Ulama. Since then, the Ulama and clergy have gained such clout that they utilize Jumma (Friday) sermons and mosque pulpits to push their objectives and vested interests in Muslim societies.

This has resulted in deepening the sectarian lines. Now separated along sectarian and Fiqhi lines,  in lieu of God’s mosques we have Ahle Hadis mosques and the Hanaf mosques, Deobandi mosques, and the Barelvi mosques, etc. They ought to be God’s mosques alone wherein worship of Allah is practiced.

 Mosques are now becoming hubs for extremism and sectarianism. The mosque must be run by a collective management of Muslims and should not be used by individuals, movements, or organizations to spread a particular theological or political message. Mosques are houses of God. They must not be transformed  into sites of conflict and disunity among Muslims. They should never be used to radicalise Muslims for a particular purpose. This is an essential step.

Research Associate with Centre for Promotion of Educational and Cultural Advancement of Muslims of India, AMU Aligarh.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Muslim societies need counter-narrative to radicalisation and religious extremism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Al Thani said that the ceasefire will come into force on Sunday, January 19 and revealed some details of the deal, adding that work on implementation steps with Israel and Hamas are still underway as some final details still need to be sorted out. An Israeli government vote on the deal is expected on Thursday, January 16.

Details of the ceasefire deal

The full details have not been confirmed by Hamas, Israel, or any of the mediators yet. However, different media outlets have reported some details, allegedly provided by well-informed sources on the ceasefire and captives-for-prisoners exchange deal. The deal will be implemented in three phases, each of which will last for six weeks.

First phase

The first phase of the ceasefire deal will see a halt to fighting, starting on Sunday, January 19. It will also involve a limited captives-for-prisoners exchange, the partial withdrawal of Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) and a surge of aid into the besieged enclave. The implementation of the first phase will go hand in hand with continuous negotiations to permanently end the war.

During the first phase, 33 Israeli captives including women, children and sick men over the age of 55 will be gradually released. In exchange, Israel will release more than 700 Palestinian prisoners, including around 275 serving life sentences.

According to Israeli TV Channel 12, three captives will be released on the first day, and four captives on the seventh day, and 13 others will be released on the 14th day. On day 28, three captives will be released, and three others on day 35. The rest of captives will be released during the last week of the first phase.

While Qatar, Egypt and the US will serve as guarantors for the implementation of the agreement as a whole, Qatar and Egypt will be supervising the return of displaced people from the southern Gaza Strip to the north within the first phase, provided that they only return on foot through the coastal road.

The withdrawal of the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) from the Netzarim corridor, which separates the northern part of Gaza from its south, will be completed in stages. Hamas is said to have demanded mediators to determine the time frame for IOF’s withdrawal, using a timetable. IOF will maintain an 800-meter deep buffer zone along Gaza’s eastern and northern borders with Israel during the first phase.

Once the ceasefire comes into force, 600 aid trucks, including 50 fuel trucks, will enter Gaza every day. 200,000 tents and 60,000 mobile homes will be provided to Gaza’s displaced people as well. To allow the entry of international aid into Gaza, the Rafah border crossing will start operating immediately under Egyptian sponsorship and in coordination with Hamas, once the ceasefire deal takes effect.

Second phase

Negotiations on the implementation of the second phase, will begin on day 16 of the first phase, which will include the release of the remaining 65 Israeli captives in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, a permanent ceasefire, and a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Third phase

The third phase will include the exchange of the remains and bodies in the possession of both parties after identification. As the third phase begins, the reconstruction of Gaza will start and last for three to five years. The reconstruction process will include homes, civilian buildings, and infrastructure, with compensation for all affected individuals under the supervision of several countries and organizations, including Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations. Furthermore, the third phase stipulates the opening of the crossings and allowing the movement of people and goods.

Remarks by Hamas, Israel, and mediators

After announcing that the ceasefire agreement was reached on Wednesday, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani affirmed that his country will continue to support the Palestinian people “with direct care and close follow-up from Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.” The Qatari premier reiterated that “the state of Qatar will work closely with its partners to ensure the full implementation of the agreement and the restoration of sustainable calm in the Gaza Strip.”

Shortly after the Qatari premier’s press conference, US President Joe Biden gave an address to announce from his end that the agreement was reached. He also provided rough information about its phases. Biden further claimed the credit for the agreement, saying that it largely mirrored the framework of a proposal he made in May.

However, US President-elect Donald Trump claimed on social media that the breakthrough, which followed months of stalled negotiations, is attributed to him, after he had repeatedly warned there would be “hell to pay” if a deal was not made by the time he takes office.

“This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies,” Trump said.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi welcomed reaching the ceasefire, emphasizing “the urgency of facilitating the swift delivery of critical humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza to address the current catastrophic humanitarian crisis, without any impediments.”

After the mediators announced reaching the ceasefire deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late Wednesday, that the deal is still not complete pending the confirmation of final details.

In a televised statement aired on Al Jazeera on Wednesday, Senior Hamas official, Khalil al-Hayya considered the announcement of the ceasefire deal “a historic moment” of the Palestinian people’s struggle for freedom. Al-Hayya pointed out that the “Al-Aqsa Flood” battle marks a pivotal moment in the history of the Palestinian cause, reaffirming that the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and the bravery of the resistance “thwarted the plans of the Israeli enemy”.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

The post Details of historic Gaza ceasefire deal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Main Points:

1. Wahhabism: A Source of Division
2. Islam at its core is a religion of peace and tolerance, but Wahhabism’s violent interpretations distort this message.
3. The movement fosters sectarian division rather than unity, destabilizing Muslim societies.
4. Wahhabism’s interpretations have been linked to global terrorism, misrepresenting Islam as a violent religion.

There are individuals who identify as Wahhabi, Ahle Hadis, or Salafi (terms commonly used to describe those who follow the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi, and thus branches of Wahhabism) and assert that they do not support extremist ideologies or violent actions. While some adherents of these movements may sincerely believe in a puritanical interpretation of Islam, it is undeniable that Salafism and Wahhabism, in their more extreme forms, have been linked to significant political, ideological, and social upheaval in the Muslim world. The impact of these ideologies on both the understanding of Islam and the state of global affairs is complex, but it is evident that these movements have contributed to some of the most troubling aspects of contemporary Islam.

Wahhabism: Ideology of Control and Division

Wahhabism, in its origin and its contemporary manifestations, was established with a vision of consolidating political power and religious orthodoxy. At its heart, Wahhabism sought to purify Islam by stripping away what its proponents considered to be innovations (Bid’ah) and superstitions that had crept into the practice of the faith. While this idea of purging Islam of practices not directly derived from the Quran or Hadith may appeal to some Muslims, it often leads to a rigid and exclusionary approach, where those who deviate from the Wahhabi interpretation are labelled as apostates or innovators.

The tendency to declare Muslims as “Kafir” (disbelievers) or “Mushrik” (polytheists) for engaging in certain practices—such as visiting the graves of saints, celebrating the Prophet’s birthday, or seeking intercession—has resulted in an environment of fear and division. This relentless focus on “purity” has led some followers to justify violence against fellow Muslims who do not adhere to the Wahhabi creed, branding them as heretics or apostates. Such ideological purges have caused widespread strife and bloodshed, as various groups within the Muslim community are treated as enemies rather than brothers and sisters in faith.

In this climate of extreme sectarianism, Wahhabism’s emphasis on violent jihad as a central tenet of its ideology has paved the way for radicalized groups. Groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others have taken inspiration from these interpretations, using them to justify terrorist acts and the imposition of their own narrow version of Islamic rule. This connection between Wahhabism and global terrorism has had far-reaching consequences, not only for the Muslim world but for the perception of Islam in the international arena.

The Disconnect from the Spirit of Islam

At its core, Islam is a religion of peace, harmony, and tolerance. The very word “Islam” comes from the root word “Salaam,” which means peace. The spirit of Islam calls for the peaceful coexistence of all people, regardless of their faith, and emphasizes compassion, justice, and mercy. However, Wahhabism, with its rigid and militant interpretation of the faith, has distanced itself from these essential principles. By focusing heavily on violence and the imposition of a singular interpretation of Islam, it has neglected the broader, inclusive message of Islam that encourages peace, unity, and dialogue.

Instead of embracing diversity within the Muslim community, Wahhabism has fostered an environment where followers are encouraged to view other Muslims as enemies if they do not conform to its strict orthodoxy. This departure from the spirit of Islam has created rifts within the Muslim world, leading to ideological, theological, and sometimes physical battles between factions. In this sense, Wahhabism has contributed to the destabilization of Muslim societies, as people who should be united by their shared faith are instead divided by doctrinal differences.

Wahhabism and the Narrative of Terrorism

Wahhabism’s global influence has put Muslims in a difficult position where, increasingly, they have to clarify to the world that Islam itself is not a violent religion. While the majority of Muslims reject extremist ideologies, the association of Islam with terrorism persists, largely because of the actions of radical groups who claim to represent Islam while adhering to distorted interpretations of its teachings. The emergence of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram has made it necessary for Muslims to constantly explain that their religion advocates for peace, not violence.

The unfortunate reality is that Wahhabism has become synonymous with the rise of ideological terrorism in many parts of the world. This is not because Wahhabism represents the true essence of Islam, but because its interpretation has been twisted by extremists seeking to justify their violent actions. The damaging impact of this is twofold: not only does it tarnish the reputation of Islam globally, but it also leaves Muslims to grapple with the misconception that their faith promotes terror, rather than peace.

Wahhabism and Its Allegiance with Israel and Western Powers

One of the most troubling aspects of Wahhabism is its political alignment with Western powers and Israel. While the movement is often positioned as a defender of Islam, it has been accused of maintaining strategic relationships with entities that are seen as adversaries to the broader Muslim world. The Saudi regime, which is a major proponent of Wahhabism, has been a longstanding ally of the United States and other Western nations, despite their involvement in conflicts that have caused immense suffering in Muslim-majority regions, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, Wahhabism’s relationship with Israel is highly controversial. Despite Saudi Arabia’s historical stance on supporting the Palestinian cause, the influence of Wahhabism within the kingdom has created a complex situation where the regime has been accused of tacitly aligning with Israel and its interests in the region. This political alignment undermines the narrative that Wahhabism is solely concerned with defending Islam; rather, it reveals a more pragmatic and opportunistic agenda that focuses on maintaining political power and securing relationships with global powers, even at the expense of Muslim solidarity.

This dual narrative—one of aggressive religious puritanism and another of political alignment with global powers—adds another layer of complexity to Wahhabism’s role in the Muslim world. It shows that while Wahhabi leaders may present themselves as champions of Islam, their actions often betray their true agenda, which involves the consolidation of power and influence at the expense of both religious and political unity among Muslims.

The Dangers of Wahhabism’s Legacy

While not all individuals who identify as Salafi or Wahhabi support violent extremism, the ideological foundations laid by these movements have undeniably contributed to the rise of terrorism and the deep divisions within the Muslim world. Wahhabism’s narrow interpretation of Islam, its promotion of violence against those deemed as apostates or innovators, and its political alliances with Western powers and Israel have played a significant role in the ongoing strife in the Muslim world.

As a result, the larger Muslim community must continue to push back against these extremist ideologies and reclaim the true spirit of Islam—a religion of peace, tolerance, and harmony for all people. Only by rejecting the divisive and violent narratives perpetuated by Wahhabism can Muslims hope to rebuild unity within their communities and present a more accurate understanding of Islam to the rest of the world.

Wahhabi and Salafi Scholars’ Role in Ideological Terrorism

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars have contributed to the spread of ideological terrorism by offering specific interpretations of Islamic texts, especially those regarding jihad, the role of violence, and the legitimacy of acts deemed as “holy war.” Some of their interpretations have been used by extremist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, to justify violence. Below are some of the key narratives and interpretations promoted by certain Wahhabi-Salafi scholars, which have been controversial and linked to growing ideological terrorism?

1. Interpretation of Jihad as Violent Warfare

One of the central aspects of Wahhabi and Salafi ideology is the interpretation of jihad as not just a spiritual struggle, but as a violent form of warfare against perceived enemies of Islam.

Example: Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328) argued that jihad was obligatory in defence of Islam. Radical groups have cited this interpretation to justify violent jihad against both non-Muslims and Muslims deemed apostates.

2. Takfirism – Declaring Muslims as Apostates

Takfirism, the practice of declaring Muslims as apostates, is central to Salafi-Wahhabi thought, justifying violence against those who do not adhere strictly to their interpretation.

Example: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792) declared practices such as seeking intercession through saints to be forms of polytheism and thus justified violence against those who engaged in them.

3.       The Obligation to Wage War against Non-Muslims

Wahhabi-Salafi scholars have interpreted certain Quranic verses as endorsing perpetual warfare against non-believers.

Example: Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (1910–1999), former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, advocated the necessity of jihad against non-believers, a view referenced by extremists.

4. The Concept of “Defensive Jihad” Against Western Powers

Some Wahhabi-Salafi scholars advocate defensive jihad against perceived enemies of Islam, particularly Western powers.

Example: Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966) called for jihad to overthrow non-Islamic rule, particularly Western influence, which influenced extremist groups like al-Qaeda.

5. Martyrdom and Rewards in Paradise

Wahhabi-Salafi thought often emphasizes the rewards of martyrdom in paradise for those who engage in jihad, particularly suicide bombers.

Example: Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292–1350) wrote about the rewards for martyrs, which have been exploited by extremist groups like ISIS.

6.         The Call for the Establishment of an Islamic State

Radical Salafi scholars advocate for the violent establishment of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law.

Example: Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (b. 1959) has argued for the violent overthrow of existing governments to establish a pure Islamic state.

Conclusion

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars, through their radical interpretations, have contributed to the ideological terrorism that has destabilized regions and fostered extremism. Their influence, particularly regarding jihad, takfirism, and martyrdom, has been central to justifying violence in the name of Islam. While mainstream Islam condemns these interpretations, their continued influence in extremist circles demands a counter-narrative to promote a peaceful and contextualized understanding of Islam.

Kaniz Fatma is a classic Islamic scholar and a regular columnist for New Age Islam.

First Published on newageislam.com

The post Wahhabism, Ahle Hadis, or Salafism’s Impact on the Muslim World appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Significantly, the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) documented and analysed 128 X posts targeted at Indians broadly within the Western context. According to the key findings in this study, these posts (in their dataset) received a total of 138.54M views on X as of January 3, 2025. 36 posts received over a million views, 12 of which claimed Indians to be a demographic threat to white America. The analysis further shows that these posts, that originated from 85 accounts, three-fourths of which were (64 accounts) displaying blue verification badges.

As pertinently, the posts, the report states, violated X’s own policies on Hateful Conduct. Violations included Incitement through ‘inciting fear or spreading fearful stereotypes about a protected category,’ slurs and tropes, and dehumanization. As of a week ago, January 3, 2025, 125 posts remained active, eight posts have been marked as sensitive, and one post remains active with limited visibility due to potential violations of X’s rules against Hateful Conduct.  Only 1 of 85 accounts in our database has been suspended by X.

What is the anti-Indian hate directed at?

The analysis in CSOH Report also shows that these attacks were not exclusively aimed at Hindus of Indian or American origin but extended to all those perceived as being of Indian descent, including Sikh community members.

Finally, the CSOH has put out a set of “Recommendations” that may be accessed here: These recommendations, crucial to understanding how hate expressions can be curtailed include: first, the recognition of anti-South Asian slurs, the need for expanded definitions, the requirement of an Establishment Advisory Council, an external stakeholder engagement framework the use of community notes proactively, counter-speech, transparency among many others.

X, formerly Twitter has been full of a barrage of anti-hate campaign that can be traced back to far-right Trump supporter Laura Loomer targeted Indian-Americans on X, following the appointment of Sriram Krishnan as an adviser on artificial intelligence to the incoming Trump administration. After this, the situation escalated when former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy in his own style (sic) criticised American culture for allegedly failing to produce enough skilled tech workers. This was followed by the multi-billionaire X owner Elon Musk, a Trump ally, weighing in by supporting the H1B visa program, noting that he himself had come to the US decades ago, through this same program.

Since then, the posts have spiralled, swamping the X platform. The report has subbed this as “an unequivocal and deeply troubling expression of anti-Indian racism.”

“With Musk and Trump both expressing support for the H1B program, the racism and hatred showed no signs of abating. If anything, it only ramped up in intensity and spread. While it may be easy to label such viral hatred as ‘spontaneous,’ the prominence of certain racist themes and tropes, along with their repeated affirmation, presents a compelling case for seeing it as a form of organised, systematic hatred, fanned by powerful actors,” the report further elaborated.

The analysis crucially analysed how the discourse deteriorated and how the “speed with which the distinction between legal or ‘good’ immigrants and ‘illegal’ or ‘bad’ immigrants collapsed in the discussion about Indians and H-1B visas on X is further affirmation of the clear presence of white supremacist ideology on X.” Of the 128 sampled posts, the most viewed post, with 17.4 million views, was shared by the account @leonardaisfunE. It featured a video of a white man mimicking Indian street food vendors, with the user commenting that it was “the funniest shit” she had seen all year. Another post by the account @callistoroll and viewed 12.3 million times, included a video in which a Japanese man described Indian factory workers as incompetent and stupid.

‘Perpetuated stereotypes about Indians’

Deeper analysis showed that 47 of the 128 posts expressed xenophobic sentiments about replacing white workers. Additionally, 35 posts perpetuated the stereotype of Indians being dirty and unhygienic, while 25 focused on public defecation, cow dung, and cow urine.

Of the posts, some claimed claimed that Indians were “inferior to citizens of Western countries, particularly the United States.” Many alleged that Indians had lower intelligence quotients compared not only to white people but also to other immigrant groups. Others juxtaposed images of the interior of a cathedral with Indian slums to promote the supposed superiority of Western civilization.

“The ranking of IQ among groups has a long history in the alt-right white movement: the obsession with IQ is rooted in longstanding eugenicist and social Darwinist ideas that claim that different races possess different IQs. White people are assumed to be at the top of the IQ ladder,” the report stated.  The report has also noted that verbal attacks extended beyond Hindus of Indian or American origin, targeting all those perceived as being of Indian descent, including members of the Sikh community.

Related:

Facebook, Twitter suspend Trump’s accounts

Twitter acts against hate speech, locks hate monger’s account

Twitter deletes trending casteist slur, terms it hate speech

The post ‘Surge in Anti-Indian Hate on X by supporters of Trump is organised, ampflies racism and xenobia’: CSOH Report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This article tries to examine what one of the most pivotal international frameworks on climate change has achieved in the last 5 years. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)f is the parent treaty of the Paris Agreement with 198 parties i.e., a universal membership. It also is the parent treaty of Kyoto protocol-a treaty on reduction in emissions.

The Paris Agreement signed in 2015 is a legally binding international treaty on climate change with the main aim of holding the global average temperature increase to well below 2° C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. There are Nationally Determined Contributions under the agreement which the countries submit and are reviewed. The Conference of Parties (COP) is the supreme decision-making body of the convention and all state parties i.e., countries are represented here; it meets on a yearly basis.

The COP 29 climate meeting in Baku concluded in November 2024 with a disappointing deal on climate finance. Developed nations agreed to mobilize a “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG) of only $300 billion per year for developing nations by 2035. This was criticized by developing countries as a “paltry sum” since it represents only a three-times increase over their current mandate of $100 billion and falls significantly short of the estimated $1 trillion, or even $1.3 trillion, that developing countries need to effectively address climate change. Some even viewed it as a “betrayal” and a continuation of the trend of developed countries “taking apart the climate system” over the years. The 2022 Adaptation Gap Report had noted that the international adaptation finance flows to developing countries are five to ten times below estimated needs and will need over US $300 Billion per year by 2030.

Outcomes of the Last Five COPs

The last five COPs have each sought to advance the goals of the Paris Agreement, but they have met with varying levels of success:

COP 25, Madrid

COP 25 in Madrid (2019) focused on finalizing the “Katowice Rulebook,” the guidelines for implementing the Paris Agreement. However, countries failed to reach a consensus on critical issues like the rules for international carbon markets (Article 6). Despite the setbacks, COP25 made some progress on other issues. For example, it strengthened the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage by establishing the Santiago Network to offer technical assistance to vulnerable developing countries. It also adopted an enhanced gender action plan to promote gender-responsive climate action and climate finance.

COP 26, Glasgow

COP 26 in Glasgow (2021) was considered a pivotal moment for raising climate ambition and finalizing the Paris Rulebook. It achieved several notable outcomes, including the Glasgow Climate Pact, which called for countries to revisit and strengthen their emission reduction targets and accelerate the phase-down of unabated coal power and the phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. COP26 also finally completed the Paris Rulebook, including agreement on Article 6. Another key focus was adaptation. The Glasgow Pact called for doubling the amount of finance to support developing countries in adapting to climate impacts. COP26 also saw the launch of several significant initiatives, including the Global Methane Pledge and a pledge by over 100 countries to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.

COP 27, Sharm El-Sheikh

COP 27 in Sharm El-Sheikh (2022) was dubbed the “implementation COP”. There was some progress on mitigation, adaptation, and finance, but many issues remained unresolved. A major breakthrough was the agreement to establish a fund to address loss and damage caused by climate change in developing countries. This was a long-standing demand from vulnerable nations and was widely seen as a significant step towards climate justice. However, the final agreement lacked strong commitments on phasing out all fossil fuels, including oil and gas. It also included weak language regarding “transitioning away from fossil fuels” that was at odds with the official global stocktake. COP27 also saw developed countries fail to deliver on their $100 billion per year climate finance pledge, which was due to be met by 2020.

COP 28, Dubai

COP 28 in Dubai (2023) was the biggest COP yet and marked the conclusion of the first ‘global stocktake’ of the world’s collective progress towards achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. The key outcome of COP 28 was an agreement signalling the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. This agreement called for a transition away from fossil fuels in a just and equitable manner. It also called for tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030 and doubling the average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements over the same period. However, much of the language surrounding these commitments remained vague and non-binding. COP28 also made progress on operationalizing the Loss and Damage fund established at COP27. This fund will support developing nations experiencing the worst effects of climate change, like severe flooding and prolonged drought. COP28 also saw unprecedented recognition of the need to link efforts to address climate change with nature conservation. By the time COP 28 ended, the commitments to the Loss and Damage Fund totalled to US$ 661 Million.

COP, Baku

COP 29 in Baku (2024) focused on finance and aimed to set a new climate finance goal to replace the $100 billion goal set in 2009. The meeting ended with developed nations agreeing to mobilize a new NCQG of $300 billion per year for developing nations by 2035. While this trebled the previous goal, it was widely criticized as being inadequate to address the needs of developing countries, especially given that previous goals were not met. It was also criticized for offering “false hope” to vulnerable communities and nations and essentially “abandoning” them.

Unresolved Issues

Several critical issues remain unaddressed or inadequately dealt with during recent COPs. The most prominent of these is the continued insufficiency of climate finance. The financial commitments agreed upon at COP29 fall far short of what developing countries need to mitigate emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and address loss and damage. This funding gap undermines trust and hinders progress, leaving vulnerable communities and nations struggling to cope with the effects of climate change. The lack of a clear roadmap for achieving the new finance goal also raises concerns about accountability and implementation. Another unresolved issue is the ambiguity surrounding the phasing out of fossil fuels. While COP28 saw an agreement to “transition away from fossil fuels”, much of the language surrounding this agreement is vague and non-binding. The lack of a firm commitment to a rapid and complete phase-out of all fossil fuels, including oil and gas, remains a major concern. Finally, adaptation measures have not received the same level of attention and financial support as mitigation efforts, even though developing countries are facing increasingly severe climate impacts. This imbalance needs to be addressed to ensure a more comprehensive and equitable approach to climate action.

Challenges faced by developing countries

Developing countries are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change impacts, even though they have contributed the least to global greenhouse gas emissions. This is largely due to their geographic locations and limited financial and technological resources, which often make it difficult for them to adapt to climate impacts. As a result, developing countries rely heavily on financial support from developed countries to achieve their climate goals. These challenges are further exacerbated by the historical inequity of climate change. Developed countries have historically emitted the vast majority of greenhouse gases, contributing to the current climate crisis. This historical responsibility creates an ethical obligation for developed countries to provide financial and technological support to developing countries.

Balancing the scales and avoiding a Climate Black Swan

A “Climate Black Swan” event refers to a catastrophic and unpredictable climate-related event with severe global consequences. To avoid such an event, the international community must take urgent and ambitious action. This requires going beyond incremental steps and embracing transformative changes in our energy systems, economies, and lifestyles. It is essential to recognize that climate change is a global issue that requires a collective and coordinated response, one that prioritizes equity, justice, and the needs of the most vulnerable.

To address the imbalance between developed and developing countries and to effectively combat climate change, several actions are crucial. First and foremost, developed countries must fulfill their existing climate finance commitments and significantly scale up their financial support to developing countries. This includes providing grants and concessional loans for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. Technology transfer and capacity-building are also essential. Developed countries should facilitate the transfer of clean technologies and provide capacity-building support to developing countries, empowering them to implement their climate plans and transition to sustainable development pathways. To ensure a just and equitable transition, the shift to a low-carbon economy must also consider the needs of workers and communities dependent on fossil fuels. This includes providing retraining opportunities, creating green jobs, and ensuring a fair distribution of the benefits and costs of the transition. Finally, all countries, especially major emitters, must set ambitious emission reduction targets aligned with the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal. This requires a rapid phase-out of all fossil fuels and a swift transition to renewable energy sources.

(The author is part of the legal research team)

Related:

SC: The right to be free from adverse effects of Climate Change is a fundamental right

Adverse impact of climate change? 43% of farmers found half of their standing crops damaged

March to border, relay fast on climate change and demands for Ladhakh to continue as climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ends hunger strike after 21…

The post From Madrid to Baku: A chronicle of inadequate climate action at UN Conferences appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is famous for his forthright statements to other world leaders. In March 1989, Mahathir wrote a letter to then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that was blunt even by his standards. Unlike a lot of his angry letters, this one wasn’t published.

Mahathir’s letter was about Salman Rushdie’s controversial book, The Satanic Verses. He wrote:

I do not think I am a Muslim fanatic. Yet I find I cannot condone the writings of Salman Rushdie in his book […] And I find the attitude of the “Western Democracies” most patronising, arrogant and insensitive.

In 2019, the UK government declassified many of its Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) files on the diplomatic upheaval over the novel. Mahathir’s letter to Thatcher is one of hundreds of unpublished diplomatic documents I have seen in visits to the UK National Archives since then.

My full analysis of this letter, and Thatcher’s response to it, has just been published in the Review of International Studies. It is part of a larger project I am working on about The Satanic Verses crisis and what it tells us about the place of religion in international relations.

Interested in understandings of religion in global order?

David T Smith has a new article in @RISjnl ‘Religion and responsibility in international relations: Thatcher, Mahathir, and The Satanic Verses’

Watch a video summary and read the article here: https://t.co/ZuIVlBEyA6 pic.twitter.com/wK0MJ0ciNV

— BISA – British International Studies Association (@MYBISA) October 31, 2024

‘The strangest and rarest crisis in history’

The Satanic Verses, published in late 1988, was met with protests throughout the Muslim world, beginning in South Asian communities in Britain. Many Muslims felt Rushdie had insulted the Prophet Muhammad for the entertainment of Western audiences.

In early 1989, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued an extraordinary fatwa (or religious edict) calling for the death of Rushdie, a British citizen living in London. This led to a diplomatic standoff that the speaker of Iran’s legislature called “the strangest and rarest crisis in history”.

Khomeini, who was seeking to strengthen Islamic hardliners in Iran, urged “all zealous Muslims” to carry out his fatwa.

No other leader of a majority Muslim country supported the death sentence, which blatantly violated Britain’s sovereignty and international law. But Mahathir and others felt Western powers should ban The Satanic Verses to maintain good relations with the Muslim world.

The British government saw no reason to ban it. Rushdie and his publishers had broken no British law, as the country’s centuries-old blasphemy laws applied only to the defamation of Christianity.

Defending Rushdie’s life was, as Thatcher put it, “a simple matter”. Her government would not tolerate an Iranian incitement to murder a British citizen on British soil.

Defending his book, however, was more complicated. The British government would not ban it, but also wanted nothing to do with it.

An unusually strong and personal letter

On March 15 1989, Thatcher and Mahathir met in London to discuss matters such as arms deals and airport privatisation. The Satanic Verses issue came up only briefly, when Thatcher thanked Mahathir for his government’s “moderate” stance on the book. She explained that while she could understand the offence the book had caused, the “great religions” could withstand such attacks.

Mahathir reassured Thatcher his government would take no action beyond banning the book. He said he had set out his personal views on the affair in a letter, which he handed to Thatcher.

When her private secretary opened the letter later that day, he found it was “cast in exceptionally strong language that was not reflected in Dr Mahathir’s demeanour at the meeting itself”, according to another archival letter.

Mahathir was having none of the argument that Muslims should behave more like Christians when it came to tolerating insults to their faith. He wrote:

It is well to remember that Islam has been around only 1,400 years. The faith and fervour of the Muslims are as strong as the faith and fanaticism of the Christians of the 15th century.

Of course, our behaviour is also influenced by the mores of the time. We are more tolerant than the 15th century Christians. We do not have inquisitions, we do not burn heretics at the stake, we do not torture those who blaspheme, we do not hound the new Muslim sects as you did the Protestants, and we do not indulge in pogroms. Our behaviour is more civilised than Christians when Christianity was 1,400 years old.

Mahathir’s letter was very unusual for a diplomatic correspondence in that it did not mention either Malaysia or Britain. The “we” of his letter referred to Muslims, while the “you” referred to the West.

And the West, for Mahathir, was a Christian world, though he believed Christianity was enfeebled and decaying within it. He did not want Islam to suffer the same fate.

The West controls the world media and denies others access to it. The power is, of course, abused. […] The Muslims are a particular target. They are made out to be cruel brutes given to all kinds of savagery.

While the West claimed to believe in freedom of expression, according to Mahathir, it did not allow Muslims to defend themselves against what they considered “scurrilous misrepresentation”. Rushdie’s book was the final straw.

Your belief in this so-called ‘freedom of expression’ for one disillusioned and misguided man is stronger than your belief in the value of good relations with 1 billion souls.

In that case, he reasoned, the West could hardly blame Muslims for defending their own principles.

“Prime Minister,” he concluded, “I am much saddened.”

A disconnect between two world views

In another archival letter, Thatcher’s private secretary noted that British officials were “rather rocked by the severity” of Mahathir’s letter.

Thatcher instructed FCO officers to draft a “reasoned response” on her behalf. David Gillmore, former high commissioner to Malaysia, warned they must try to address Mahathir’s points or the reply would sound “condescending and supercilious”.

Written in Thatcher’s voice, the letter said she was “well aware of the distress” the book had caused Mahathir and many in the Islamic world. The reply avoided creating a perception the government was responsible for it.

I must emphasise that the British Government do not in any way condone or endorse Mr Rushdie or the content of this book.

Although freedom of speech was a principle of major importance, Thatcher insisted Britain was not seeking to impose its values on the Muslim world. The issue had “nothing to do with relations between Christians and Muslims”. Rather, it was one of national sovereignty and international law.

When it came to the heart of Mahathir’s complaint, Thatcher’s response resorted to language that was polite, firm and vague:

I was especially saddened to hear you suggest that the Western-controlled media made a particular target of the Muslim world. I cannot agree that this is the case. I believe that this century has seen a growing understanding between the nations, cultures and religions of the world. We must continue to work to improve that understanding.

The British government’s view was that states in the modern age could overcome differences once caused by religion. As such, Thatcher’s response would only represent Britain, not Christendom, despite the many symbolic and even legal ways the British state was still tied to Christianity.

This was one of the reasons Thatcher and Mahathir were doomed to talk past each other. For Western leaders, political authority had superseded religious authority in the 17th century. In diplomacy today, the things that mattered were sovereign states.

The leaders of Muslim countries also viewed sovereign states as important –they were the basis of their own legitimacy. And they had to defend the state against religious radicals who wanted to remake the world along classical Islamic lines.

But for leaders like Mahathir, who grew up in a British colony, religion was still a vital force in diplomatic relations. He viewed the Western insistence on a secular world order as a continuation of colonial dominance over the Muslim world.

The legacy of The Satanic Verses

We can see from this exchange how the British government wanted to distance itself from The Satanic Verses, even as it sought to protect Rushdie.

While many fellow writers, including Muslims like Naguib Mahfouz, leapt to the defence of Rushdie and The Satanic Verses, the book had few defenders in the British government. (One exception was Rushdie’s local MP, the future Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.)

In his recent memoir, Knife, Rushdie notes that he got a far more sympathetic response when he was nearly murdered in 2022 than when the fatwa was issued in 1989.

Despite the British government’s notable lack of support for Rushdie’s book, Muslims in Britain and around the world felt the political and cultural power of the West was aligned against them.

This continues to be important for understanding controversies around derogatory images of the Prophet Muhammad in the West. They are never just about the images. They are also about a global imbalance of power that goes back to colonialism.

Mahathir and Thatcher were mutual admirers of each other – and both can claim to have been their countries’ most transformative leaders of the past 50 years. Mahathir, now 99, is still active in Malaysian politics despite recurring health issues.

Mahathir’s anger in this letter did not reflect personal animus against Thatcher. It foreshadowed his future emergence as a global advocate of Islamist causes. His modernist brand of Islamism may well outlast Khomeini’s, despite the violent legacy of Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie.

David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post 35 years after The Satanic Verses controversy, newly unearthed letters reveal some uncomfortable truths appeared first on SabrangIndia.