Even before this week’s terrorist bombing at a pop concert in Manchester, England, people across Europe and in the U.S. and Canada had pervasive concerns about the threat of extremism in their countries. Across 12 countries surveyed from February through April by Pew Research Center, majorities said they were at least somewhat concerned about extremism in the name of Islam in their countries, including 79% who said this in the UK itself. And across the 10 EU countries surveyed, a median of 79% were concerned about Islamic extremism, while only 21% were not concerned.
Salman Abedi and Abdu Albasset Egwilla, just every day Muslims following the teachings of the Koran. So please, let us not speak ill of the Religion of Peace.
TORONTO — The bomber suspected of attacking a Manchester pop concert has been linked to an extremist imam from Ottawa whom Canadian intelligence officials had warned was “promoting violent jihad” in Libya.
Quoting a senior American official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Salman Abedi “had links to a radical preacher in Libya identified as Abdul Baset Ghwela.”
The report appeared to be referring to a man the Canadian government calls Abdu Albasset Egwilla, a Canadian cleric who has been accused of inciting violence in Libya since returning there.
It is simply false to declare that jihadists represent the “tiny few extremists” who sully the reputation of an otherwise peace-loving and tolerant Muslim faith. In reality, the truth is far more troubling — that jihadists represent the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale, with hundreds of millions of believers holding views that Americans would rightly find revolting. Not all Muslims are hateful, of course, but so many are that it’s not remotely surprising that the world is wracked by wave after wave of jihadist violence.
In video footage of the ceremony, the young teenager can be seen dressed in a light-blue headscarf in a tiny room hidden at the back of the suburban mosque as she waits in silence to be married to a man she has reportedly known for just a few days.
Pakistan suffers from customs like Vani whereby girls are forcibly married to a family as part of a punishment for a crime committed by male members of their family.
The issue of forced marriages does not only exist in far-off rural areas but also in urban areas. Girls are married against their will due to one reason or another.
Moreover, this custom affects people within all around the world. Many Pakistanis, who are settled in foreign countries, marry their sons and daughters against their will to members of their family in Pakistan for various purposes, to help get members of their family citizenship of the foreign country they reside in.
A news report published in BBC Urdu has said that Pakistan ranks at the top when it comes to forced marriages between British citizens and citizens of other countries.
The report said that facts and figures quoted by the British government highlight that in 2016, the greatest number of forced marriages occurred between Pakistani and British citizens.
It is puzzling why more women aren’t speaking out against the latest slur on feminism: the concept of feminist Islam (“Waleed Aly’s wife Susan Carland defends Islam’s feminist credentials,” The Australian, May 11).
Indeed, if it is the case that feminism and Islam are perfectly consistent, then feminism isn’t exactly the emancipators’ movement that millions have thought it to be for a couple of hundred years now. Or perhaps Islam isn’t the repressive religion we have all thought it was.
Either you are a Muslim or you are a feminist. You cannot be both. Seriously, how can a woman call herself a feminist and believe there are occasions when a husband is perfectly justified in striking his wife from whom he fears disobedience (Koran, Sura 4:34)?
Even the utterly unconvincing attempt of the two Muslim women in a viral video some weeks ago to suggest the Koran was really talking about a symbolic beating is totally out of step with any kind of feminism as we know it today.
Seriously? A husband symbolically beating his disobedient wife with a pencil or piece of cloth as consistent with female empowerment and equality?
Maybe, but only if you are comparing it to the literal meaning of the verse, which clearly licenses a physical beating.
The niqab and burqa both should be banned on security grounds, because one cannot allow faceless and bodyless persons walking the streets, driving cars, and otherwise making use of public spaces; the dangers are too great. This blog focuses on specific dangers, especially in the West (where reporting is better), of the niqab, burqa, and other Islamic coverings as a disguise for criminal and terrorist purposes.