Latest news with #Muslim-majority
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump administration appeals to reinstate ban on Harvard's international students
The Trump administration is challenging a judge's ruling. This ruling blocked a proclamation affecting Harvard's international students. The appeal continues a legal battle that began in May. The proclamation cited concerns about Harvard's foreign ties. Judge Burroughs criticized the administration's attempt to restrict international students. Harvard is preparing alternative study plans for its international students. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Also Read: Harvard and University of Toronto make contingency plan for international students Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision blocking a proclamation that sought to bar international students from enrolling at Harvard University , as reported by The New York Times. The appeal, filed in federal court in Boston, signals a continuation of a legal standoff that began in May over the university's international conflict escalated after a presidential proclamation issued on June 4. The proclamation accused Harvard of 'entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries,' and cited donations from Chinese entities as part of its June 23, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs halted the enforcement of the proclamation. In her ruling, she criticized the administration's attempt to restrict international students at Harvard, calling it a 'misplaced effort to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration's own views.'She added that the administration sought 'to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students, with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens.'The administration defended its stance by referencing a 70-year-old law designed to block foreign enemies from entering the United States. It also cited the Supreme Court's decision that upheld a 2017 ban on visas for individuals from several Muslim-majority countries. However, Judge Burroughs rejected the administration's legal reasoning, calling it 'absurd.'The court order will remain in place while Harvard's lawsuit against the administration hosts approximately 7,000 international students and scholars each year, with nearly 2,000 of them being recent graduates. These students represent roughly one-fourth of the total student anticipation of further legal developments, Harvard is preparing alternate study arrangements for international students. These include the possibility of remote learning and partnerships with institutions abroad. The Harvard Kennedy School confirmed it is working with the University of Toronto to accommodate some students during the ongoing legal process.
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Iqbal, China and the Muslim world
Listen to article More than a century ago, Allama Iqbal issued a timeless call: for Muslims to rise above rhetoric and embrace real work grounded in knowledge, science and self-discipline. His poetry, pulsating with spiritual urgency and civilisational insight, did not glorify past empires but urged a reconstruction of thought and society. That call has never been more relevant than it is today. The post-WWI world order fundamentally altered the trajectory of Muslim societies. With disintegration of the Ottoman Caliphate and the subsequent colonisation of the Arab heartlands, political agency of Muslims was replaced by fragmentation, subservience and ideological confusion. In the century that followed, many Muslim-majority nations failed to develop strong institutions or meaningful influence in global affairs. While pockets of wealth and modernity emerged — often due to oil or strategic alliances — the deeper foundations of progress remained weak or absent. The 21st century has laid bare this civilisational lag. The Middle East is mired in conflict, authoritarianism and foreign interference. South Asia wrestles with sectarianism and economic volatility. Even relatively stable Muslim states often suffer from weak education systems, declining scientific output and overreliance on external patronage. Worse still, many remain trapped in ideological rhetoric without building the internal capacities needed for real sovereignty. The tragic examples of Iraq, Libya, and now Iran offer stark lessons. Each, in its own way, challenged Western dominance but they did so without the necessary economic, technological or diplomatic strength. Iraq was destroyed under the false pretense of WMDs. Libya imploded into chaos following the toppling of Gaddafi. Iran, isolated for decades, continues to face economic hardship, international sanctions, and now aggression. In all cases, resistance without capacity led to ruin, not renewal. In contrast stands China - a nation that, without sacrificing its sovereignty or succumbing to colonial hangovers, has managed a remarkable rise. China's ascent did not begin with defiance or provocation but with a disciplined focus on human development, industrial capacity and strategic patience. It educated its people, modernised its infrastructure and embedded itself in the global economy. It avoided open conflict with the West while gradually becoming indispensable to it. While one must be critical of China's authoritarianism and human rights record, there is much to learn from its strategic posture. China did not seek validation through ideological slogans or military muscle-flexing. It sought power through productivity. The real confrontation the Muslim world faces today is not with the West but with internal decay. This includes decaying education systems, corrupt political elites more interested in power than reform, and religious discourse often disconnected from ethics, science and the needs of modern societies. Without addressing these root causes, no amount of protest, pan-Islamic rhetoric or diplomatic manoeuvring will yield meaningful change. Iqbal understood this. He was not a romantic who merely yearned for a return to the Caliphate. He envisioned a revival rooted in selfhood (khudi), character and relentless striving. He saw Islam not as a nostalgic identity but as a moral and intellectual project — open to the world, engaged with its complexities and capable of shaping its future. The Muslim world must now reimagine its priorities. It must invest heavily in education — not just religious but scientific, technological and philosophical. It must foster cultures of merit, innovation and critical inquiry; focus on building internal strength and institutional resilience; and realise that economic and technological independence is the new foundation of sovereignty. China may not offer a perfect model. But it offers a sobering contrast: a nation once humiliated by colonialism, now quietly reshaping global power through discipline, planning and human development. The Muslim world, if it listens to Iqbal, can do the same — not by mimicking others, but by rediscovering its own intellectual and spiritual DNA, and expressing it through the realities of the modern age.
San Francisco Chronicle
20 hours ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
SCOTUS deals huge blow to judges' power to rein in Trump in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court, in a victory for the Trump administration, limited the authority of individual federal judges Friday to issue nationwide injunctions against government actions that a judge has found to be illegal. The court deferred action on President Donald Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children, including the children of undocumented immigrants. But the decision deals a blow to individual judges' ability to rein in lawless actions by Trump or future presidents. 'Congress has granted federal courts no such power,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote in the 6-3 ruling. Since Trump returned to office in January, she said, federal judges have issued about 25 nationwide injunctions against his orders and policies. Friday's ruling, on the last day of the court's 2024-25 term, did not prohibit nationwide injunctions altogether. Instead, Barrett said the orders Trump challenged on birthright citizenship must be blocked until lower courts decide whether they can be narrowed or must be overturned. Three federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions preventing Trump from enforcing his order against birthright citizenship. This follows a trend in recent years of a president's opponents seeking sympathetic judges to issue court orders halting executive actions. During Barack Obama's administration, a federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the president from telling government agencies that they were legally required to let transgender visitors use restrooms that corresponded with their gender identity. During Trump's first administration, U.S. District Court judges issued injunctions blocking his executive orders that banned U.S. entry from a group of mostly Muslim-majority nations, orders that the Supreme Court eventually upheld after the president narrowed their scope. U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of San Francisco barred the administration from cutting off funding to 'sanctuary cities' that did not allow their police to cooperate with immigration agents, a ruling the Supreme Court upheld. And other judges issued nationwide orders, over Trump's objections, continuing the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which allows undocumented immigrants to live and work in the U.S. if they entered the country before age 16, had attended school or served in the military and had no serious criminal record. Although the case began as a challenge by Trump to birthright citizenship, the administration's lawyers asked the court to consider that issue in a future case after lower courts have reviewed it. The Supreme Court agreed. The Constitution's 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, grants citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' except for children born to foreign diplomats or to soldiers of invading armies. The Trump administration's Justice Department argued that children whose parents were undocumented immigrants or visitors to the U.S. were not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the nation and therefore could be denied citizenship. But California and 18 other states that challenged Trump's action said those children were bound by U.S. laws, including criminal laws, and were clearly under the nation's 'jurisdiction.' They also cited the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling upholding the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who had immigrated from China. In that ruling, a 6-2 court majority said the 14th Amendment 'affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, including all children born here of resident aliens.' The court reaffirmed the decision in a pair of cases in 1982 and 1985 that upheld citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Trump's nationwide order enforcing his rollback of birthright citizenship has been blocked by federal judges in Washington state, Maryland and Massachusetts in lawsuits by Democratic-controlled states and the city of San Francisco and by immigrant-rights advocates. At the Supreme Court's hearing in May, D. John Sauer, the Justice Department's solicitor general, said the Trump administration would argue against birthright citizenship in lower federal courts before bringing the issue to the high court. Sauer focused instead on challenging the authority of individual federal judges in the citizenship case and others to issue injunctions ordering a nationwide halt to policies the judges considered unconstitutional. That practice 'encourages rampant court-shopping,' Sauer said, arguing that only the individuals who filed the suits should be allowed to benefit from the rulings while they are being appealed. But if that happened, said the states' lawyer, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, children and their families would rapidly migrate to states that recognized their citizenship. 'Our country has never allowed citizenship to vary based on the state in which one resides,' he told the court. The cases are Trump v. Casa Inc., No. 24A884; Trump v. Washington, No. 24A885; and Trump v. New Jersey, No. 24A886.
Business Recorder
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
India accused of illegal deportations targeting Muslims
NEW DELHI: India has deported without trial to Bangladesh hundreds of people, officials from both sides said, drawing condemnation from activists and lawyers who call the recent expulsions illegal and based on ethnic profiling. New Delhi says the people deported are undocumented migrants. The Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has long taken a hardline stance on immigration – particularly those from neighbouring Muslim-majority Bangladesh – with top officials referring to them as 'termites' and 'infiltrators'. It has also sparked fear among India's estimated 200 million Muslims, especially among speakers of Bengali, a widely spoken language in both eastern India and Bangladesh. 'Muslims, particularly from the eastern part of the country, are terrified,' said veteran Indian rights activist Harsh Mander. 'You have thrown millions into this existential fear.' Bangladesh, largely encircled by land by India, has seen relations with New Delhi turn icy since a mass uprising in 2024 toppled Dhaka's government, a former friend of India. But India also ramped up operations against migrants after a wider security crackdown in the wake of an attack in the west – the April 22 killing of 26 people, mainly Hindu tourists, in Indian-administered Kashmir. New Delhi blamed that attack on Pakistan, claims Islamabad rejected, with arguments culminating in a four-day conflict that left more than 70 dead. Indian authorities launched an unprecedented countrywide security drive that has seen many thousands detained – and many of them eventually pushed across the border to Bangladesh at gunpoint. 'Do not dare' Rahima Begum, from India's eastern Assam state, said police detained her for several days in late May before taking her to the Bangladesh frontier. She said she and her family had spent their life in India. 'I have lived all my life here – my parents, my grandparents, they are all from here,' she said. 'I don't know why they would do this to me.' India arrests three after student gang-rape in Kolkata Indian police took Begum, along with five other people, all Muslims, and forced them into swampland in the dark. 'They showed us a village in the distance and told us to crawl there,' she told AFP. 'They said: 'Do not dare to stand and walk, or we will shoot you.'' Bangladeshi locals who found the group then handed them to border police who 'thrashed' them and ordered they return to India, Begum said. 'As we approached the border, there was firing from the other side,' said the 50-year-old. 'We thought: 'This is the end. We are all going to die.'' She survived, and, a week after she was first picked up, she was dropped back home in Assam with a warning to keep quiet. 'Ideological hate campaign' Rights activists and lawyers criticised India's drive as 'lawless'. 'You cannot deport people unless there is a country to accept them,' said New Delhi-based civil rights lawyer Sanjay Hegde. Indian law does not allow for people to be deported without due process, he added. Bangladesh has said India has pushed more than 1,600 people across its border since May. Indian media suggests the number could be as high as 2,500. The Bangladesh Border Guards said it has sent back 100 of those pushed across – because they were Indian citizens. India has been accused of forcibly deporting Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, with navy ships dropping them off the coast of the war-torn nation. Many of those targeted in the campaign are low-wage labourers in states governed by Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), according to rights activists. Indian authorities did not respond to questions about the number of people detained and deported. But Assam state's chief minister has said that more than 300 people have been deported to Bangladesh. Separately, Gujarat's police chief said more than 6,500 people have been rounded up in the western state, home to both Modi and interior minister Amit Shah. Many of those were reported to be Bengali-speaking Indians and later released. 'People of Muslim identity who happen to be Bengali speaking are being targeted as part of an ideological hate campaign,' said Mander, the activist. Nazimuddin Mondal, a 35-year-old mason, said he was picked up by police in the financial hub of Mumbai, flown on a military aircraft to the border state of Tripura and pushed into Bangladesh. He managed to cross back, and is now back in India's West Bengal state, where he said he was born. 'The Indian security forces beat us with batons when we insisted we were Indians,' said Mondal, adding he is now scared to even go out to seek work. 'I showed them my government-issued ID, but they just would not listen.'
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Middle East caught in crossfire: Has the Israel-Iran conflict forced allies to secretly choose sides while staying silent?
The recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran, brokered under US President Donald Trump, appears to be holding, despite minor disruptions. As the immediate threat subsides, Middle Eastern countries are reevaluating their diplomatic strategies and regional alignments in light of the conflict's impact. One theme is consistent across the region: the attempt to maintain a delicate balance in public positions and behind-the-scenes actions, particularly concerning both Israel and Iran. Ambiguous positions from Jordan and Saudi Arabia Several Arab and Muslim-majority countries, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, condemned Israeli attacks in a joint statement. However, these same countries reportedly took covert actions that benefitted Israel. Jordan's air force blocked Iranian drones and rockets from crossing its airspace, citing civilian protection. Saudi Arabia is believed to have allowed Israeli aircraft through its airspace and possibly even intercepted Iranian missiles directly—though this remains unverified. Both countries have long-standing military ties with the US and receive significant financial or security support. Jordan alone gets $1.45 billion annually in US foreign aid, making it one of the top recipients globally. Despite public criticism of Israel, both Jordan and Saudi Arabia remain cautious not to strain ties with Washington or Tel Aviv. Gulf states, Egypt, and their balancing acts with Iran Regional actors like the Gulf states and Egypt appear to be positioning themselves for long-term stability. Analyst Simon Wolfgang Fuchs suggests that although Iran's regional influence has weakened—especially with the decline of its proxies like Hezbollah and shifts in Syria—Gulf nations still view Iran as a key actor, not one to be further destabilized. Egypt's role has also drawn attention. While backing the ceasefire and calling for diplomacy, Cairo suppressed pro-Palestinian marches, including detaining activists in Ismailia. Egypt, receiving around $1.3 billion in US military aid, remains cautious about endangering its US ties, particularly under the current administration. Uncertainty over Iran's future leadership Some countries in the region may actually prefer the current Iranian regime to remain intact. As Marcus Schneider from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation notes, there is little organized internal opposition to the Iranian government, and exiled groups such as monarchists and the People's Mujahedin lack widespread support. Schneider warns that a weakened Iran is manageable, but a desperate one could behave unpredictably. Fuchs adds that President Trump's unpredictable foreign policy, especially his use of social media, is disrupting traditional alliances and priorities. He believes that US focus may drift away from the Middle East entirely, except in relation to Israel and the guns fall silent, Middle Eastern countries are left navigating a fragile web of diplomacy, security interests, and US influence.
