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.

Amid this gloomy and dark time, the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court based in The Hague, on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), offers a small window of hope to Palestinians and others who still have faith in a right and law- based international order and attempt to use international law to restrain Israel. The ICJ declared Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory—comprising the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as illegal under international law.

Israel occupied almost all the territories of Palestine under the British Mandate during the 1967 war and this area still remains almost entirely under its control. Notwithstanding the Security Council’s unanimous resolution passed on November 22, 1967, calling Israel to withdraw its armed forces from territories it occupied during the war, Israel systematically planned and executed a policy designed to confiscate the lands it conquered while simultaneously expelling Palestinians, demolishing their homes and building and expanding Jewish settlements to finally covert the conquest into annexation. On September 25, 1971, the Security Council (SC), once again reiterated that “all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of lands and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status,” Israel, like in the past, turned a deaf ear to this call by the SC.

A recent United Nations (UN) report has acknowledged the rapid and exponential rise in Israeli settlements and settlers in the occupied areas, including Jerusalem. The report states that during the period from November 1, 2022 to October 31, 2023, about 24,300 new Israeli housing units were built in the occupied West Bank, which is the highest on record since UN monitoring began in 2017. In East Jerusalem alone, approximately 9,670 units of Israeli settlement were reportedly built during this period. By 2023, there were approximately 465,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, spread across around 300 settlements and outposts, while some 230,000 settlers in East Jerusalem.

It must be noted that Israeli policy of annexations, expulsions and the creation of settlements are specifically prohibited by international law. For example, article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 clearly proscribes the annexation of occupied territory, and article 49 prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of residents from an occupied area. In July 2001, Israel also constructed a wall along the Green Line and in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a security barrier against violence from Palestinians, which the ICJ, in its advisory opinion rendered in 2004, found contrary to international law.

The Israeli policy has resulted in continuous displacement of Palestinians, creating a source of tension and conflict. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, the ever expanding Israeli settlements in the OPT risk eliminating any practical possibility of a Palestinian state.

It must be noted that, in addition to a contentious jurisdiction, which the ICJ exercises to decide legal disputes between states, it has an advisory jurisdiction that allows it to provide non-binding opinions on legal questions at the written request of the UN organs, its specialized agencies or related organisations authorized to make such a request. Accordingly, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on December 30, 2022, requested the ICJ, pursuant to Article 65 of its Statute, to render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, as well as its denial of the rights of Palestinian people to self-determination, its discriminatory legislation, and its efforts to alter the demographic composition, character and status of the areas it occupies, including the Holy City of Jerusalem.

In accordance with Article 66(1) and (2) of the ICJ Statute, 52 countries and three international organisations submitted written statements before the court in July and August 2023. Interestingly, almost all written submissions were on behalf of Palestine. The court heard oral arguments in February 2024. Israel boycotted the court’s proceedings. The ICJ in its 78-year long history has not witnessed such a huge response from states.

The 83-page advisory opinion of the ICJ offers a detailed response to the questions presented to it by the UNGA.  Vindicating the Palestinian cause, the ICJ in no uncertain terms declared that Israel’s continued occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful and ordered it to end its presence there, including all its settlements and settlers, “as rapidly as possible.” The court declared that, the sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the OPT and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.

In the opinion of the court, Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the OPT and make reparation for the damage caused to all concerned. The ICJ also obliged Israel to pay reparations to the population of the OPT and called on third states and international organizations, including the UN, to refrain from helping Israel maintain its presence there. The court asked the UNGA, which requested the opinion, and the SC, to consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of Israel in the OPT.

Consequent to this remarkable opinion by the world court, the UNGA adopted a momentous resolution on September 13, 2024, by a two-thirds majority in a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 14 against, and with 43 abstentions. The resolution demanded that Israel brings to an end its unlawful presence in the OPT, no later than 12 months from the adoption of the resolution. The UNGA resolution outlines the obligation of states and international organizations not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the OPT.

Though the ICJ ruling is unlikely to change the course of the ongoing war in Gaza and end its occupation, it will have profound political implications and can be leveraged to mobilise meaningful international pressure against Israeli misdeeds in the OPT and for the cause of Palestinian statehood. The ruling has woken up the world to the crying need for justice for the Palestinians, who have endured decades of cruelty and systematic human rights violations and have long, been struggling to hold Israel accountable. The ruling offers much needed succour to Palestinians at a dire moment in history.

(The author teaches international law at Aligarh Muslim University and heads its Strategic and Security Studies Programme)

The post Illegality of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For American Muslims the choice today is between the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris and the Republican, Donald Trump: both ‘khula dushmans’ of Muslims. There is, of course, a difference between the Indian and American Muslim contexts. The Indian Muslim response has been based on their own bitter experience as citizens of India. On the other hand, uppermost in the mind of many American Muslims today is not so much their personal experience as citizens of USA, but the hypocrisy and the blatant complicity of the Biden administration in the year-long ongoing Israeli genocide of fellow-Muslims in Palestine and now Lebanon too.

The Democratic Presidential aspirant, Harris unreservedly defends the Biden administration’s unstinted support to the immoral, illegal, outrageous massacre of Palestinian men, women and children. She has even asserted that the biggest enemy of the US is not Russia or China but Iran. Several steps ahead of her, Trump is goading mass murderer Netanyahu to “finish the job” in Gaza and Lebanon and even launch a full-scale war against Iran.

 So who should or will American Muslims vote for come November 5? Democrat Harris, Republican Trump, a third candidate with no chance of winning, or simply stay home on V-day?

Several influential voices among American Muslims are urging the community to go for Trump in order to teach Harris and the Democratic Party a lesson. Included among them, is a group of Imams in the US who an open letter quote the Quran while asking Muslims to shun Harris. A non-American analyst, Sami Hamdani has declared it is the “religious duty” of American Muslims to deny Harris their vote even if means victory for Trump.

The most brazen appeal to religion however has been made by the Green Party’s vice-presidential candidate in the coming polls, Buch Ware. Ware, a Muslim, has tweeted this dire warning: “The ‘Muslims’ that have come out in support of Harris, have inscribed their names on the tablets of eternity alongside that of Nimrod, Pharaoh, Caesar and Yazid. Every soul slain in Gaza has a claim against them on Judgement day. They better dress light – been hearing Hell is hot.”

The ‘Muslims’ in quotes clearly implies that Muslims who support Harris are nothing but fake Muslims who must await their fate come the Day of Judgement. Presumably Allah’s angels are keeping a close watch right now of what American Muslims are thinking and will record their deed on November 5.

Fortunately, there are saner voices too. The most compelling among them is that of the well-known journalist Mehdi Hasan. He ran his weekly ‘Mehdi Hasan Show’ on the American TV channel MSNBC until November 2023 when it was abruptly discontinued for his bosses could not stomach his bold coverage and commentary on the American complicity in the Palestinian genocide. He has since launched his own channel, Zeteo.

In a 9-minute long episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vOzUmqv-s)

, Hasan challenges those who are asking fellow-Muslims to abandon Harris. He clarifies that as a journalist it is neither his job nor intention to canvass support for Harris. He is only asking Muslims not to succumb to pressure from fellow-Muslims, and think clearly of what is at stake in the coming elections before casting their votes. He questions the wisdom behind the three main propositions and assumptions of the no-to-Harris camp.

Proposition One: Weaponising of faith, introducing religion in essentially secular political disputes. “The increasing invocation of the Quran to tell people to vote the right way, (is) emotionally blackmailing them into not voting for the Democrats and the accompanying insinuation that you are not a good Muslim, or not a Muslim at all, if you think of voting the candidate who is the lesser of two evils”. Hasan rightly asks: who can claim knowledge of what is in another person’s heart, who has the right to judge another person’s faith? While he does not mention it, there is also this to consider: Will such weaponisation of Islam hinder or help Islamophobia not only in the US but globally?

Proposition Two: Humbling of Harris will compel the Democrats to introspect and American Muslims will emerge a force to reckon with. Hasan questions the sheer naiveté and ignorance of how American politics works. He points to the 2000 US polls when American Muslims voted en masse for George W Bush. What happened next was the invasion of Iraq and the killing of half-a-million Iraqi Muslims. He next refers to the 2020 elections when having seen four years of Trump, Muslims voted for Biden. This, of course, has not come in the way of Biden’s unstinted support to Netanyahu.

Proposition Three: Underestimating the implications of Trump’s victory. Hasan asks: If Biden is complicit in the ongoing genocide in Palestine and Lebanon, what about Trump’s complicity with the Saudis in the genocide of Yemeni Muslims during his first term as president?

In his new book, War, the Watergate reporter Bob Woodward maintains that Trump is far worse than Nixon and, ‘the most reckless and impulsive president in American history.’

American Muslims who have endured four years of Trump earlier will survive one more term of his presidency, argues the non-American Samdani. That begs the question: should American Muslims be thinking only as members of a particular faith community? Should they not also be thinking as American Citizens, ponder over what another four years of the pro-genocide, pro-Netanyahu, racist, anti-Muslim, sexual abuse and felony convict, increasingly unhinged Trump mean would mean for all Americans and the rest of the world?

The post American Muslims’ dilemma: Harris or Trump? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 17, 2024, at around 15.30 hours local time, thousands of pagers were simultaneously detonated in Lebanon, killing 12 people and inflicting injuries on about 3,000 others. Outside of Lebanon, 14 people were injured in similar blasts in neighbouring Syria.

Although the attacks appeared to be a complex Israeli operation targeting Hezbollah, “an enormous amount of civilian casualties were also reported, as the detonations occurred wherever members’ pagers happened to be — including homes, cars, grocery stores and cafes.”

That was not all. The following day, at around 17.00 hrs local time, several other hand-held devices were targeted, including walkie-talkie radios, mobile phones, laptops, etc., killing 20 more people and injuring about 450 others. The indelible marks of Israel’s dirty tricks departments were very much discernable behind these terrorist attacks, as is evident from the following report from CNN:

“…CNN has learned that the explosions were the result of a joint operation by Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, and the Israeli military. Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, tacitly acknowledged his country’s role the day after the pager attack, praising “excellent achievements, together with the Shin Bet, together with Mossad.”

Shell Company

Apparently about five months ago, Hezbollah had procured about 5,000 new pagers from a Taiwanese company ‘Gold Apollo’ that were actually manufactured and sold by a company based in Budapest, Hungary, which had a license to use its brand on the pagers. However, the New York Times [‘How Israel Built a Modern-Day Trojan Horse: Exploding Pagers’, 20.09.2024] has uncovered that, for all intents and purposes, the Hungarian company was just a shell company:

“By all appearances, B.A.C. Consulting was a Hungary-based company that was under contract to produce the devices on behalf of a Taiwanese company, Gold Apollo. In fact, it was part of an Israeli front, according to three intelligence officers briefed on the operation. They said at least two other shell companies were created as well to mask the real identities of the people creating the pagers: Israeli intelligence officers.

B.A.C. did take on ordinary clients, for which it produced a range of ordinary pagers. But the only client that really mattered was Hezbollah, and its pagers were far from ordinary. Produced separately, they contained batteries laced with the explosive PETN, according to the three intelligence officers.

The pagers began shipping to Lebanon in the summer of 2022 in small numbers, but production was quickly ramped up after Mr. Nasrallah denounced cellphones.”

Implanting and exploding as little as 3 grams of PETN (Pentaerythritol tetranitrate – a stable high explosive chemical compound) in each device was sufficient to cause havoc. Similarly, the handheld radio sets were also recently procured purportedly from a company with logos of the Japanese manufacturer ‘Icom’.

According to the Associated Press (AP): “A sales executive at the U.S. subsidiary of Japanese walkie-talkie maker Icom told the AP that the exploded radio devices in Lebanon appear to be a knock-off product and not made by Icom.” Apparently, Israeli intelligence agencies had succeeded in implanting the explosive devices into the walkie-talkie sets and other electronic items before they reached Lebanon.

Attacks Condemned

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati condemned the attack as “a serious violation of Lebanese sovereignty and a crime by all standards”, according to the state-run NNA news outlet. UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), through a statement issued on September 19, 2024, also condemned the blasts in no uncertain terms:

 “UN human rights experts today condemned the malicious manipulation of thousands of electronic pagers and radios to explode simultaneously across Lebanon and Syria as “terrifying” violations of international law….

‘To the extent that international humanitarian law applies, at the time of the attacks there was no way of knowing who possessed each device and who was nearby,’ the experts said.

‘Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices would inevitably violate humanitarian law, by failing to verify each target, and distinguish between protected civilians and those who could potentially be attacked for taking a direct part in hostilities.’

‘Such attacks could constitute war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks, in addition to violating the right to life,’ the experts said.”

Humanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects where specifically designed and constructed with explosives – and this could include a modified civilian pager, the experts said.”

‘Masterstroke’

On the contrary, India’s Chief of the Army Staff, General Upendra Dwivedi, in a TV interview with Firstpost’s Managing Editor, Palki Sharma, has expressed views that are shocking. General Dwivedi has actually praised the methods adopted by Israel to carry out its terrorist attacks as a “masterstroke”. This is clear from the text of the relevant excerpts from the video clip of the said TV interview that is reproduced below. Palki Sharma did ask a very pertinent question to the General.

Q: Palki Sharma [at 0.15 seconds of the video clip]:

“It seems some disturbing precedence being set in this conflict [in West Asia], including the use of everyday gadgets and turning pagers and walkie-talkies into bombs and it makes people think everywhere in the world that we are all carrying some gadgets or the other at all points and we are all sitting ducks. So does India share this concern about these methods and what are we doing to ensure that we are not at the receiving end of something like this?”

A: Army Chief [at 01.36 minutes of the clip]:

“In this case Israel has decided very clearly that Hamas is primarily focus, which I must maintain. So what is done is completely firstly wipeout Hamas opposition. Thereafter, it said okay let us see on the other side. And if you see the pager what you are talking about it is a Taiwan company being supplied to a Hungarian company. Hungarian company thereafter giving it to them. The shell company, which has been created, is something, which is a masterstroke by the Israelis. And for that it requires years and years of preparation. So it means they were prepared for it. And that is what it counts. That the war does not start the way you start fighting; it starts the day you start planning. And that is what is most important. So they had planned all these activities and what they did firstly they made sure that the pagers get blasted people get injured people died. Okay, now what happens? Perforce now you have to shift to mobile. The movement you shift to mobile what happens your signals are getting triangulated…. [At 02.58 minute] Coming to our side, yes the same threat arises. So supply chain interruption, interception, is something we have to be very watchful. So we have to have various levels of inspection on all these issues whether at the technological level or as well as manual level also to make sure that such things do not get repeated in our case.”

Shocking Views

The interviewer had asked a pointed question: “So does India share this concern about these methods?” She was referring specifically to “some disturbing precedence being set in this conflict [in West Asia]”. However, the Army Chief desisted from responding to this specific query. Instead, he went on to praise the methods Israel had adopted to execute its terrorist attacks:

“The shell company, which has been created [to carry out the terrorist attacks], is something, which is a masterstroke by the Israelis. And for that it requires years and years of preparation. So it means they were prepared for it. And that is what counts. That the war does not start the day you start fighting; it starts the day you start planning. And that is what is most important. So they had planned all these activities and what they did firstly they made sure that the pagers get blasted people get injured people died.”

The Army Chief did not express any “concern” about the methods used; the General remained totally unmoved by the “disturbing precedence being set”! He chose to eulogise not condemn Israel’s terrorist acts. However, the General did dwell on the precautionary steps that India should take to safeguard its security and ward off such threats.

India’s Principled Stand

How could the Army Chief have been oblivious to the fact that India was a ‘High Contracting Party’ to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1981, which prohibits the use of booby-trap weapons, and had ratified the same on March 1, 1984?

How is it possible that the Ministry of External Affairs had never briefed the General regarding India’s considered position as a ‘High Contracting Party’ on the matter, which India reiterates before the UN every year? For example, in 2007, India’s position regarding Protocol–II to the CCW was as follows:

“In stipulating that mines, booby traps or other devices must not be targeted against civilians or civilian objects or used indiscriminately, the Protocol effectively applies the core principles of the CCW Convention concerning the prohibition on the use of weapons that are indiscriminate and the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature that cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.”

UN’s Office for Disarmament Affairs had made it very clear that:

“By ratifying the CCW, States commit to the: …Prohibition and regulation of the use and transfer of non-detectable anti-personnel mines, boobytraps, and other devices;…”

Apparently, the General was also unaware that Israel had carried out the terrorist attacks despite having acceded to the CCW on March 22, 1995, which is nothing but display of utter contempt for even the treaties that Israel professes to abide by.

GoI Should Explain

It is amply clear that the Army Chief had made pronouncements that are wholly contrary to the principled stand adopted by the Government of India before the United Nations for the last 53 years. Or has the Government of India reversed its principled stand and decided to tacitly support the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Israeli regime?

Anyway, the Government of India is not only duty bound to explain why it has refrained from condemning the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Israeli regime on Lebanon on September 17 and 18, 2024 but also clarify how the Army Chief could have made statements that are wholly contrary to India’s principled stand against use of booby-trap weapons.

Booby Trap Attacks in India

The Army Chief’s admiration for methods used by Israel to perpetrate booby-trap attacks is all the more bizarre because India itself has been a victim of such terrorist acts on numerous occasions for the past several decades and is continuing to face such threats. The most infamous of such attacks include: (a) the serial ‘transistor bomb blasts’ of May 10/11,1985 in Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh that killed 85 people and injured another 150; (b) the Mumbai serial blasts of 1993 that killed 257 people and inflicted injuries on 1,400 others; and the serial train blasts of July 11, 2006 in Mumbai that killed 189 people and injured over 800 others. Furthermore, ‘Maoist’ groups in India have been regularly using booby-trap weapons with telling effect.  Under these circumstances, how has the Army Chief gone on to justify the methods chosen by Israel to use booby-trap weapons? The Army Chief has a lot to explain.

        Adverse Consequences

The concerned global community has suddenly woken up to the ramifications of the misuse of mass-consumed electronic gadgets for terrorist activities. In the opinion of Subimal Bhattacharjee, a defence and cyber security analyst, there are three aspects to this massive impending threat:

“First, the usage of digital technology to levels that force multiple physical attacks and as a combination, lead to concerns over creating a larger havoc. With artificial intelligence becoming a major factor in enhancing kinetic weapons capabilities, the horizon is more complex.

Second, is the use of such techniques a harbinger for more deadly forms of cyber attacks? Can nations be allowed to go to such an extent of causing violence and death using digital techniques?

Third, how will the supply chain ecosystem deal with such attacks? Modern technology supply chains are incredibly complex, with components and software often sourced from multiple countries and suppliers. This complexity creates ample opportunities for malicious actors to introduce compromised hardware or software at various points in the supply chain. These compromises can be extremely difficult to detect and may lie dormant until activated for an attack.”

Until and unless concrete steps are promptly initiated to prevent gross misuse of mass-consumed electronic gadgets for terrorist purposes – especially by States such as Israel – the adverse consequences that the entire human society would be compelled to face would be unimaginable.

N.D.Jayaprakash (jaypdsf@gmail.com) is Joint Secretary, Delhi Science Forum and Member, National Coordinating Committee, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament & Peace. The views are personal.

First Published on newsclick.in

The post Booby Trap Attacks on Lebanon: Indian Army Chief’s Shocking Views appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Harriet McCulloch, Reprieve’s deputy director, noted that as global attention focuses on crises elsewhere in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is intensifying its use of the death penalty. McCulloch stated that, “As the world’s attention fixates on horror elsewhere in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is clearing death row with a bloodbath.”  As reported the Middle East Eye.

The rapid increase in executions reflects a troubling trend

As per the Middle East Eye report, McCulloch states that the Kingdom smashed its own grim record for most people executed in a year in the first nine months of 2024. She added that “With 213 executions and counting, death row prisoners are at greater risk than ever before, their families desperately awaiting news of their fate in the news.”

Link:

Saudi Arabia is in the midst of an execution crisis.

At least 213 people have been executed in 2024 so far.

This makes 2024 a record-breaking execution year for the Kingdom.

4/5

— Reprieve (@Reprieve) October 9, 2024

The rise in executions is occurring under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has held the titles of Prime Minister and de facto leader of the kingdom. Despite his 2018 vow to reduce capital punishment, the kingdom remains one of the most prolific executioners globally. Since Mohammed bin Salman assumed power on June 21, 2017, at least 1,115 executions have been documented.

A joint report released in 2023 by the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR) and Reprieve found that the execution rate in Saudi Arabia has nearly doubled since King Salman and his son took the reins in 2015. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of executions surged by 82%.

Reprieve has also accused Saudi Arabia of misleading the UN about its use of the death penalty. During a recent meeting with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Saudi officials claimed that the death penalty is only applied in the most serious cases and that laws protect minors from capital punishment. This statement contradicts the kingdom’s history of executing individuals for crimes allegedly committed as minors.

For example, three clients of Reprieve and ESOHR—Abdullah al-Derazi, Youssef al-Manasif, and Abdullah al-Howaiti—were convicted based on confessions obtained under torture for crimes committed before they turned 18. The Saudi Human Rights Commission also inaccurately reported that Mustafa al-Darwish, sentenced to death for protest-related offenses, was over 19 at the time of his alleged crimes. However, evidence provided by Reprieve and ESOHR proved he was under 18. Darwish was executed on June 15, 2021, despite the evidence.

Saudi Arabia fails to win seat at top UN Human Rights Body

On October 9, 2024, Saudi Arabia has failed to win a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) after a vote for membership in the 2025-27 term. This is the second time in a row for the Persian Gulf kingdom to lose the elections.

According to the Middle East Eye, HRC voted on October 9, 2024 to elect 18 new members from 19 candidates running on five separate regional slates. The Asia-Pacific slate had six candidates competing for five seats. Saudi Arabia came in sixth with 117 votes, behind the Marshall Islands (124), the Republic of Korea (161), Cyprus (167), Qatar (167) and Thailand (177).

In Wednesday’s election, it received 117 votes, the least among six Asia-Pacific countries competing for five seats on a regional slate.  Saudi Arabia was one of 19 candidates who were in the race of membership for HRC body. McCulloch was also urged UN member states to reject Saudi Arabia’s bid, stating, “Today, UN member states should vote no—no to Saudi Arabia securing a seat on the council, and no to rising executions carried out with impunity.”

However, earlier Human rights activists strongly urged that Saudi Arabia’s push for a seat on the HRC contradicts the council’s mission. Members are expected to uphold high standards of human rights and fully cooperate with the council. UN Watch, a group that monitors the UN’s adherence to its own principles, has called for changes to the HRC’s election process, which currently allows countries with poor human rights records to become members.

Rights groups have welcomed the news, stating that it underscores Riyadh’s failure to make meaningful progress in improving its human rights record.

Crackdown on Dissent and Notable Cases

Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty extends beyond ordinary crimes to encompass political repression. In 2017, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrested around 70 members of the political elite, including members of the royal family, as part of his strategy to consolidate power. High-profile incidents, such as the 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, have sparked worldwide outrage. While Prince Mohammed has denied any personal involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, a U.S. investigation has implicated him in the assassination.

Related:

Saudi Funding of Intolerance: The Other Face of the Indian Sufi’s Angst

Saudi Arabia: A Dark Stain on Islam

How Saudi Wahhabism spread hatred of non-Muslims in Egypt

The post Saudi Arabia executes 213 persons in less than 10 months appeared first on SabrangIndia.