Latest news with #MuslimMajority
Arab News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Bangladesh to hold elections in February 2026: Yunus
DHAKA: Bangladesh will hold elections in February 2026, interim leader Muhammad Yunus said Tuesday, the first polls since a mass uprising overthrew the government last year.'On behalf of the interim government, I will write a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner requesting that the election be arranged before Ramadan in February 2026,' Yunus said in a broadcast on the one-year anniversary of the ousting of prime minister Sheikh Peace Prize winner Yunus, 85, is leading the caretaker government as its chief adviser until elections, and has said he will step down after the vote.'We will step into the final and most important phase after delivering this speech to you, and that is the transfer of power to an elected government,' he had earlier said elections would be held in April, but key political parties have been demanding he hold them earlier, and before the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in the Muslim-majority nation of 170 million people.'I urge you all to pray for us so that we can hold a fair and smooth election, enabling all citizens to move forward successfully in building a 'New Bangladesh',' he added.'On behalf of the government, we will extend all necessary support to ensure that the election is free, peaceful and celebratory in spirit.'
South China Morning Post
14-07-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Malaysia lashes out at Trump's pick of ‘Zionist' envoy Nick Adams: ‘not welcome here'
The Trump administration's selection of Nick Adams , a self-styled 'Alpha Male' author and social media provocateur, as the next US ambassador to Malaysia has triggered outrage in the Muslim-majority nation, with critics questioning the motives behind the decision. Advertisement Washington announced on Thursday that Adams, who has a history of inflammatory remarks, had been selected for the diplomatic post. The decision has prompted alarm among diplomats and Southeast Asian observers, many of whom see President Donald Trump 's choice as prioritising political loyalty over diplomatic expertise. Adams, a naturalised American and former member of Australia 's Liberal Party before immigrating to the United States in 2012, has regularly courted controversy with his misogynistic remarks, Islamophobic tirades – such as the claim that Trump's opponents sought to 'teach Islam in schools' – and vocal support of Israel Members of Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim 's ruling coalition have decried Adams's appointment as an 'insult' to the Muslim-majority country, especially its decades of support for Palestinian rights. Nick Adams is not a diplomat, not a statesman. He is merely an extreme right-wing propagandist Mus'ab Muzahar, Amanah official 'Nick Adams is not a diplomat, not a statesman. He is merely an extreme right-wing propagandist, a Trumpist and vocal supporter of Israel's Zionist regime,' said Mus'ab Muzahar, an official from moderate Islamist party Amanah, part of the ruling Pakatan Harapan coalition. Advertisement 'His social media rhetoric is full of hatred, racism and Islamophobic sentiments which veer far from mature bilateral relations.'
South China Morning Post
15-06-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Is Indonesia ready to roll the dice on casinos at the risk of social costs?
The potential legalisation of gambling in Indonesia has resurfaced as a means for higher state revenue, but opponents argue the activity risks fraying the cultural fabric of the world's largest Muslim-majority nation. Lawmaker Galih Kartasasmita floated the idea during a meeting with the finance ministry on May 8, where he said Indonesia should follow the footsteps of the United Arab Emirates, which legalised gambling last year. 'The UAE is ready to run a casino, [an] Arab country [finally] runs a casino. Their ministries and institutions are out of the box,' Galih said. Gambling is forbidden – whether offline or online – in Indonesia, where nearly 90 per cent of the population is Muslim. In October, the UAE granted its first commercial gaming operator licence to Las Vegas-based hotel and casino operator Wynn Resorts, becoming the first Gulf country to legalise the sector. A few days later, Galih clarified he was not proposing to allow gambling in Indonesia, but merely suggesting the ministry could seek more creative ways to reduce Indonesia's dependency on natural resources.
Forbes
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
Telegraph
05-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
What Trump's travel ban is really intended to achieve
Donald Trump's decision to bar the citizens of a dozen countries from entering the United States is his most sweeping visa ban yet. By casting his net wider than ever, the US president is ostensibly protecting Americans from foreigners who pose a threat to homeland security. Countries that do not properly vet their citizens or whose nationals overstay their visas were selected for outright bans, while seven other states were subjected to restrictions that would prevent as many as 90 per cent of their nationals from visiting the US. The move is a resurrection of a policy from his first term, but Mr Trump has considerably broadened his scope, imposing a much wider, if less draconian, set of measures — one that reflects a desire to overcome future legal challenges while pacifying his supporters. His 2017 executive order, which went through several iterations, saw a ban on travellers from seven nations with large Muslim majorities, earning adulation from his supporters. By contrast, just eight of the 19 countries hit by outright or partial bans under his latest edict have Muslim majorities. Mr Trump's tour of the Middle East last month, during which he cemented friendships with a string of rich Gulf potentates, may be a factor. More likely, though, the US president is simply being more strategic than in his first term. By taking aim at non-Muslim states alongside the usual suspects in the Middle East and Horn of Africa, he is making the legal challenges he faced the first time around less likely to succeed. The White House has been careful to justify its choice of targets, saying the countries listed pose security threats either because their nationals tend to overstay visas or because they have a significant 'terrorist presence'. With an eye on the courts, Mr Trump has also carved out exemptions even for states facing an outright ban: Afghans who worked with the US military, or persecuted minorities in Iran will, in theory, still be allowed in. This will allow Mr Trump to claim a significant victory on an issue important not just to his base, but beyond. Securing US borders is a central plank of his America First ideology. The visa ban is one element of this strategy, complementing a range of steps on immigration — from raids to detain migrants, to mass deportations and restrictions on international students. The ban will have real consequences. Last year, the State Department issued 170,000 visas to the citizens of countries facing an outright ban. The list of affected countries is far broader geographically than in Mr Trump's first term, with nine drawn from sub-Saharan Africa, three from the Americas, three from the Middle East and four from elsewhere in Asia. Of the countries reprieved this time, two offer an instructive insight into Mr Trump's shifting geopolitical priorities. North Korea and Syria omitted from list North Korea, added to the initial list later in 2017, is the first omission. In his first term, Mr Trump expended significant diplomatic capital in a fruitless quest to force Kim Jong-un to give up his nuclear arsenal. North Korea's inclusion may have been part of a pressure campaign designed to force concessions. That having failed, there is little value now in a symbolic measure like a visa ban. Very few North Koreans ever come to the United States, after all. The second is Syria, one of the main targets of the first ban because of the flood of refugees fleeing its civil war during Mr Trump's first term. But the war is over, the dictator Bashar al-Assad has been toppled and the White House has taken significant steps – over the objections of Israel but to the delight of most Arab states – to end Syria's isolation. Russia was floated as ban candidate Laying aside concerns about the new Syrian government's jihadi past, Mr Trump met President Ahmed al-Sharaa during his Middle East tour and announced an end to US sanctions on Damascus. Syria's exemption from the ban is further evidence of its accelerating rehabilitation. Other countries have remained on the banned list for more obvious reasons. Libya, Somalia and Yemen are all conflict-ridden with a large jihadi presence. In other cases, diplomatic factors may be at play. Iran has been included again – presumably to increase diplomatic pressure for a nuclear deal. Removing it from the list could be an inducement the Trump administration hopes to dangle to extract concessions from Tehran. Russia was floated in March as a possible candidate but avoided the final list – despite the threat posed by Russian sleeper operatives in the US. But Mr Trump, whose affinity with Moscow is well known, has no wish to alienate Vladimir Putin while he hopes for a peace deal with Ukraine. Including Russia would also have triggered pushback from Moscow's allies on the American right. The most puzzling entries are some of the countries whose citizens are facing a ban for the first time. Chad, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo – not to be confused with its larger neighbour, the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is in talks with Washington over a critical minerals deal – are hardly obvious candidates for Mr Trump's ire. The three may not have cooperated sufficiently in accepting nationals deported from the US but none poses a more serious security threat than nearby states. Chad's neighbours in the African Sahel – Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger – are military dictatorships that have lost swathes of territory to jihadist groups, but escaped without a visa ban. Immediate answers are not obvious. But it is worth remembering that decision-making in the Trump administration can be arbitrary. Under the 'Liberation Day' tariffs announced in April – and later suspended – countries were hit with different rates based on rudimentary trade calculations. It is possible that some of the African states now on the visa ban list have suffered a similar fate. They may also serve to camouflage accusations of anti-Muslim bias. And as low-profile countries unfamiliar to most Americans, the risk of diplomatic blowback is small.
