Sri Lanka blast kills over 180 people

Salaam

Another update.



Sri Lanka’s face cover ban has nothing to do with protecting citizens – its only goal is to punish Muslim women

People who have covered their faces for over 20 years are now afraid to leave their homes. Once again, it’s women who are being targeted by extremists and Islamophobes alike

One week after the Easter Sunday attacks, Sri Lanka is still in turmoil. As law enforcement and security forces proceed with investigations, and searches throughout the island have uncovered more weapons, fear, confusion and misinformation are rife.

It wasn’t long before Islamophobes called for a burqa and niqab ban, and the government wasted no time in issuing a statement declaring a ban on “all face coverings” soon after, though their intended target is clearly the niqab and burqa worn by some Muslim women.

At the time of writing, there was no gazette under emergency regulation, therefore the ban was not legally in effect as early as many in the public thought it was, although the gazette has now been published.

It is clear that the government is reacting to racist rhetoric, as there has been no evidence to suggest that the niqab or burqa was used by the suicide bombers. In fact, CCTV footage reveals that they were men dress in pants and shirt, carrying large backpacks.

In over two decades of war; Sri Lankan Muslim women who covered their faces always complied with security personnel at checkpoints, and revealed their faces for identification purposes. Removing the burqa/niqab for security purposes is not new to them or contested by the community. A blanket ban therefore is extreme and unwarranted.

This move will only embolden racist vigilantes who harass Muslim women during the frequent attacks on the Muslim community in post-war Sri Lanka. Incidents have occurred where the headscarves worn by some Muslim women are supposedly mistaken for the niqab or burqa by security persons and civilians, leading to some headscarf-wearing women being asked to remove the shawls or scarves during security checks.

A more hostile encounter can be seen in a video circulating on social media in which a civilian man aggressively demands a woman passerby to remove her niqab. Her voice shakes as she agrees to reveal her face if he stops video recording her.

One of the strangest things about this ban is the fact that the government chose to consult a controversial Muslim organisation in drafting legislation against the burqa and niqab. The All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (ACJU), one of many Muslim organisations in Sri Lanka, has no women in its leadership. In the past, the ACJU had released a fatwa declaring that Muslim women should conceal their faces in public.

The ACJU has also stood against Muslim women who have demanded reforms in Muslim personal law. Currently there is no stipulation of age of marriage in the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) and girls as young as 14 years are sometimes given off in marriage.The law also does not require the consent of the women to be married. Given this background, what gives the ACJU the authority and expertise to represent women in the Muslim communities and dictate to Muslim women how they should or should not dress?

The Ministry of Justice is fully aware of well-established Muslim women’s groups that could have been consulted. These groups consist of Muslim women academics, theologians, and women’s rights lawyers all of whom are adequately capable on advising the issue and its detrimental impacts.

Muslim women who have covered their faces for over 20 years, are now afraid to leave their homes. They have not had time to adjust to the ban and they are not mentally prepared for it. For them, concealing their face in public is part of their practice as Muslims; it is part of their identity. Whether the niqab and burqa is a religious obligation or not, this callous call for an overnight ban has left Muslim women more vulnerable and afraid in an already difficult time for everyone in the county.

In all of this, the government has conveniently ignored the reality that it is women who are victimised by extremists and Islamophobes alike.

When Islamic extremism took root in Sri Lanka, the violence was first turned inwards towards Muslim women. Now that this violence has turned outwards, Muslim women are, yet again, the first to face the brunt of the backlash.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...lim-islamophobia-church-bombing-a8891656.html

 
Last edited:
Junon said:
Salaam

Another update.



Sri Lanka’s face cover ban has nothing to do with protecting citizens – its only goal is to punish Muslim women

People who have covered their faces for over 20 years are now afraid to leave their homes. Once again, it’s women who are being targeted by extremists and Islamophobes alike

One week after the Easter Sunday attacks, Sri Lanka is still in turmoil. As law enforcement and security forces proceed with investigations, and searches throughout the island have uncovered more weapons, fear, confusion and misinformation are rife.

It wasn’t long before Islamophobes called for a burqa and niqab ban, and the government wasted no time in issuing a statement declaring a ban on “all face coverings” soon after, though their intended target is clearly the niqab and burqa worn by some Muslim women.

At the time of writing, there was no gazette under emergency regulation, therefore the ban was not legally in effect as early as many in the public thought it was, although the gazette has now been published.

It is clear that the government is reacting to racist rhetoric, as there has been no evidence to suggest that the niqab or burqa was used by the suicide bombers. In fact, CCTV footage reveals that they were men dress in pants and shirt, carrying large backpacks.

In over two decades of war; Sri Lankan Muslim women who covered their faces always complied with security personnel at checkpoints, and revealed their faces for identification purposes. Removing the burqa/niqab for security purposes is not new to them or contested by the community. A blanket ban therefore is extreme and unwarranted.

This move will only embolden racist vigilantes who harass Muslim women during the frequent attacks on the Muslim community in post-war Sri Lanka. Incidents have occurred where the headscarves worn by some Muslim women are supposedly mistaken for the niqab or burqa by security persons and civilians, leading to some headscarf-wearing women being asked to remove the shawls or scarves during security checks.

A more hostile encounter can be seen in a video circulating on social media in which a civilian man aggressively demands a woman passerby to remove her niqab. Her voice shakes as she agrees to reveal her face if he stops video recording her.

One of the strangest things about this ban is the fact that the government chose to consult a controversial Muslim organisation in drafting legislation against the burqa and niqab. The All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama (ACJU), one of many Muslim organisations in Sri Lanka, has no women in its leadership. In the past, the ACJU had released a fatwa declaring that Muslim women should conceal their faces in public.

The ACJU has also stood against Muslim women who have demanded reforms in Muslim personal law. Currently there is no stipulation of age of marriage in the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) and girls as young as 14 years are sometimes given off in marriage.The law also does not require the consent of the women to be married. Given this background, what gives the ACJU the authority and expertise to represent women in the Muslim communities and dictate to Muslim women how they should or should not dress?

The Ministry of Justice is fully aware of well-established Muslim women’s groups that could have been consulted. These groups consist of Muslim women academics, theologians, and women’s rights lawyers all of whom are adequately capable on advising the issue and its detrimental impacts.

Muslim women who have covered their faces for over 20 years, are now afraid to leave their homes. They have not had time to adjust to the ban and they are not mentally prepared for it. For them, concealing their face in public is part of their practice as Muslims; it is part of their identity. Whether the niqab and burqa is a religious obligation or not, this callous call for an overnight ban has left Muslim women more vulnerable and afraid in an already difficult time for everyone in the county.

In all of this, the government has conveniently ignored the reality that it is women who are victimised by extremists and Islamophobes alike.

When Islamic extremism took root in Sri Lanka, the violence was first turned inwards towards Muslim women. Now that this violence has turned outwards, Muslim women are, yet again, the first to face the brunt of the backlash.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...lim-islamophobia-church-bombing-a8891656.html
Click to expand...
Regardless you cannot claim it wasn't coming. If muslim countries were at the top and christian terrorists did attack like that, we would demand all the churches be demolished, and atleast 10-20 churches would be demolished.

You have to understand that SL government has to show they are taking some type of revenge - fair or not.
 
Salaam

Another update

Dr Zakir Naik’s Peace TV reportedly banned in Sri Lanka

Cable operators in Sri Lanka have reportedly blocked the prominent Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik’s Peace TV channel in the wake of the Easter Sunday bombings which killed at least 253 people.

Bangladesh and India had banned the channel as authorities claimed ISIS recruiters used the channel to allegedly brainwash the youth.

Two of Sri Lanka’s largest cable operators, “LT” and “Dialogue” have reportedly stopped airing Peace TV. However, an official announcement regarding the move is yet to be made.

On Monday, India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested a man in Kerala who is suspected to have links with ISIS, and who allegedly was a follower of the Easter Sunday attacks, Zahran Hashim.

The suspect who has been identified as Riyas Aboobacker, 29, also known as “Abu Dujana” has allegedly told investigators that he had been watching videos and listening to speeches of Dr Naik, as well as of Hashim.

While the Indian media are widely reporting this admission by Aboobacker, it cannot be ruled out that this information could have been obtained by torture or be fabricated by the NIA to fulfil a wider anti-Islam agenda.

The NIA said Aboobacker was arrested for conspiring to commit a terrorist act in connection with its investigation into 2016 ISIS cells in Palakkad and Kasargod.

The world-renowned preacher Dr Naik has been under investigation by Indian agencies since 2016 after his Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) organisation was banned for five years.

Dr Naik has been falsely linked with terrorist organisations by Indian authorities and is currently residing in Malaysia.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka, with its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi claiming in a recent video that the group’s operatives had carried out the attacks to territorial losses in Iraq and Syria.

However, the Sri Lankan government has blamed a local “Islamist” group National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ) for the bombings, and believe that its leader Hashim was the mastermind of the group that carried out the blasts on Sunday 21 April.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/05/01/dr-zakir-naiks-peace-tv-reportedly-banned-in-sri-lanka/


Comment

Shah Hussain

What has dr naik got to do with terrorism????
Ive watched a few of his talks and he just seems to answer questions, gives answers from islamic writings and other religious books. In favour of his views,.... is this terrorism???
 
Very, very surprised South Indian/Tamil muslims are being involved in ISIS, they are the calmest muslims I know. All sub-continental countries need to cut off Suadi funding of "mosques" at once, including Pakistan.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top