&w=3840&q=100)
Radical Islamist group vows ‘Afghanistan-style' Sharia rule in Bangladesh
The radical Islamist group Jamaat-Char Monai has publicly declared its intention to reshape Bangladesh along the lines of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, with its leader saying that the imposition of Sharia law is part of the group's agenda.
According to a Times of India report, in a July 1 interview with Khaled Muhiuddin, a US-based Bangladeshi journalist and editor-in-chief of Thikana News, Char Monai Pir Mufti Syed Muhammad Faizul Karim said, 'If govt is formed by winning the national election, the Islamic Movement Bangladesh will introduce Sharia law in the country.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'The current governance system of Afghanistan will be followed,' he said.
'If we come to power, Hindus will also get rights in Sharia law that we will introduce. The rights of minorities will also be implemented,' Karim was quoted as saying.
He also said that 'good things' of the US, the UK and Russia that do not conflict with Sharia will be accepted.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh's Awami League party sharply slammed the interim government's silence on the matter, questioning whether it stems from 'negligence or deliberate complicity.'
Raising alarm over rising violence and sectarian attacks, the party asked whether the assaults on temples, disruption of religious practices, targeting of women, and erosion of secular values reflect the true intentions of the so-called 'July Movement.'
Since the ouster of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in August last year, Bangladesh has seen a spike in extremist activity. Under the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus, radical groups have increasingly resorted to violence and provocation, particularly against minority communities.
Analysts suggest that these radical forces may have collaborated with student leaders and Yunus in the movement to topple the elected Awami League government.
In a press conference on Tuesday, the Awami League presented alarming statistics on human rights violations, accusing the interim administration of plunging the country into a state of 'brutal anarchy.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The party described Bangladesh as a 'blood-stained nation' under the Yunus-led regime, citing a breakdown in safety, justice, and leadership.
According to data shared by the party, 63 cases of rape were reported in June alone, including 17 gang rapes.
Among the survivors were seven women and girls with disabilities. Additionally, 19 children and 23 teenage girls were raped. The month also saw 39 cases of sexual harassment and 51 physical assaults on women.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Rubio praises Pak's ‘partnership in countering terrorism' after meeting Ishaq Dar
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, in Washington on Friday. The two leaders held wide-ranging talks on strengthening bilateral ties, trade cooperation, and regional to X, Rubio said he thanked Dar for 'Pakistan's partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional stability.' The leaders also discussed ways to expand bilateral trade and deepen collaboration in the critical minerals and mining with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister @MIshaqDar50 today to discuss expanding bilateral trade and enhancing collaboration in the critical minerals sector. I also thanked him for Pakistan's partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) July 25, 2025advertisementAccording to US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, Secretary Rubio expressed appreciation for 'Pakistan's continued willingness to play a constructive role in mediating conversations with Iran and its commitment to preserving regional stability.' The two sides also discussed plans for the upcoming US-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue set to be held in Islamabad this August. The talks included enhancing cooperation against terror groups such as ISIS-K, as both nations seek to broaden counterterrorism efforts in the Rubio stressed the importance of 'expanding mutually beneficial bilateral trade' and exploring future opportunities for joint work in the minerals sector, an area gaining strategic significance amid growing global demand for critical to Arab News, Ishaq Dar is on an eight-day visit to the US, during which he chaired multiple United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meetings as part of Pakistan's rotating presidency this meeting comes just days after Rubio announced that the United States would designate The Resistance Front (TRF), a front for the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as both a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).TRF had claimed responsibility for the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 people.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
