Pahalgam killings against tenets of Islam, says Darul
AGRA: Prominent Muslim institutions and groups across Uttar Pradesh on Thursday strongly condemned the
.
Darul Uloom Deoband
, one of the largest Islamic seminaries in the subcontinent which is known for issuing 'fatwas', in a strongly-worded statement against the terrorists, emphasised that "targeting innocent civilians is grossly inhuman & directly against the tenets and teachings of Islam".
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
VC of Darul Uloom, Mufti Abul Qasim Nomani, called the "cowardly act" a threat to nation's unity and integrity and demanded strict action against the perpetrators. He also appealed to the people of India to remain united and maintain peace & harmony.
Maulana Arshad Madni, chief of
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind
, expressed similar sentiments. "Those who kill innocent people aren't human, they are beasts... There is no room for terrorism in Islam," he said.
In Aligarh, students from Aligarh Muslim University held a candlelight vigil Wednesday night to mourn and stand in solidarity with the victims' families. "Such acts are deliberately done to undermine the very fabric of our society and disrupt peace," said VC prof Naima Khatoon.
Meanwhile, in a rare show of unity, residents of different communities in Muzaffarnagar's Khalapar took to the streets possibly for the first time, raising slogans like 'down with terrorism'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
36 minutes ago
- India.com
Are Muslims A Threat To Japan? Surge In Population Altering...Protest Erupt Over...Identity Crisis Looms...
In Indian culture, guests are considered deities. In Japan, the word Omotenashi is used for guests, meaning to welcome them with warmth and respect. However, in Japan today, public anger against Muslims, particularly Kurdish immigrants, is evident on the streets. This means a major campaign against Muslims is currently underway in Japan. The images you're seeing are from Japan's Saitama Prefecture. Thousands of people, carrying Japanese flags, have taken to the streets against Kurds. We want to clarify that Kurds are not native to Japan; they are people from Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, mostly Sunni Muslims. When persecution against Kurds increased in these countries, Japan showed humanitarianism by granting them visa exemptions. Following this, the Kurdish population in Kawaguchi and Warabi in Southern Saitama continuously grew. The Kawaguchi and Warabi areas effectively became a "mini-Kurdistan." As the population grew, the fear of Kurds in these areas also increased, leading peace-loving native Japanese people to take to the streets to protect their homeland. Protests demanding the expulsion of Sunni Kurds from Japan have been ongoing since 2023, fueled by years of pent-up anger. 'रिश्तों के बंधन' में 'भरोसे के कत्ल' का विश्लेषण ट्रंप राज में जलते अमेरिकी झंडे का DNA टेस्ट देखिए #DNA LIVE Rahul Sinha के साथ#ZeeLive #ZeeNews #DNAWithRahulSinha #rajaraghuvanshi #DonaldTrump #LosAngeles @RahulSinhaTV — Zee News (@ZeeNews) June 9, 2025 In July 2023, a Kurd murdered two Japanese people. In January 2024, some Kurdish individuals were accused of sexually assaulting a Japanese woman. One suspect in this case was later accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. In September 2024, an unlicensed Kurdish driver ran over and killed two Japanese motorcyclists. In 2023, 69 Kurds were arrested in Japan for criminal offenses, representing 6% of all foreigners arrested for crimes. This means 6 out of every 100 criminals were found to be Kurdish. The increasing involvement of Kurds in crime has exhausted the patience of Japanese people, leading to calls for their expulsion from Japan. The root of native Japanese anger is not just crime, but also an anxiety about preserving their cultural identity. In 2005, the Muslim population in Japan was 110,000. By 2023, the Muslim population had grown to 350,000. In 18 years, the Muslim population in Japan has tripled. We also want to mention that about 48% of Japan's population follows Shintoism, which is Japan's indigenous religion. Around 46% follow Buddhism, and the remaining 5% follow other religions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism. Although the number of Muslims in Japan's total population is small, the rapid growth of the Muslim population has increased concerns among native Japanese about their culture.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Trump's new travel ban takes effect amid immigration enforcement tensions
President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the US by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the US and don't hold a valid visa. The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all US diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travellers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the US even after the ban takes effect. During Trump's first term, a hastily written executive order ordering the denial of entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries created chaos at numerous airports and other ports of entry, prompting successful legal challenges and major revisions to the policy. In the hours after the new ban took effect, no disruptions were immediately discernible at Los Angeles International Airport. And passengers appeared to move steadily through an international arrival area at Miami International Airport, where Magda Moreno and her husband flew home Monday from Cuba. Everything was normal," said Moreno, a Cuban American who had travelled to the Caribbean island nation to visit family. "They only asked me where I was coming from and how many days I was in Cuba. Asked about the new travel restrictions for Cubans, Moreno, a US citizen, said: It is difficult not being able to bring the family and for them not being able to enter into the US. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport earlier Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the US are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear, Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting. Many immigration experts say the new ban is more carefully crafted and appears designed to beat court challenges that hampered the first by focusing on the visa application process. Trump said this time that some countries had deficient screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the US after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. US officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. This policy is not about national security it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States, said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organisation. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the US government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
