Indian Islamic center warns Muslims against felling trees

Indian Islamic center warns Muslims against felling trees
A labourer is silhouetted against the setting sun as he bathes on a hot summer day in Jammu on June 1, 2024. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 03 June 2024
Follow

Indian Islamic center warns Muslims against felling trees

Indian Islamic center warns Muslims against felling trees
  • Much of northern India has been gripped by a deadly heatwave with temperatures above 45° Celsius

LUCKNOW: One of India’s most influential Islamic centers has warned Muslims not to chop down trees or burn fields after harvesting to help stem climate change and surging temperatures.

Much of northern India has been gripped by a deadly heatwave with temperatures above 45° Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit), killing scores of people by heatstroke.

“Every Muslim must ensure no green trees and crops are set on fire,” Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahal, chair of the Islamic Centre of India, said.

Mahal, a top scholar in the northern city of Lucknow, issued the non-binding fatwa or ruling on Sunday, saying that the religious duty of Muslims to conserve greenery and water was “stated in the Qur’an”.

“Burning trees and crops is forbidden in Islam and is considered a grave sin,” read the fatwa, published in Urdu and Hindi.

He also urged Islamic clerics to encourage stewardship of the environment during their sermons – telling people to take care of the trees around them.

“Instead of merely planting a sapling symbolically, it is more meaningful to take care of existing plants and trees,” he said, urging Muslims to prevent pollution of waterways and the sea.

Last week, an Indian court urged the government to declare a national emergency over the country’s ongoing heatwave, saying that hundreds of people had died during weeks of extreme weather.

The High Court in the western state of Rajasthan, which has suffered some of the hottest weather, said authorities had failed to take appropriate steps to protect the public from the heat.

India is no stranger to searing summer temperatures but years of scientific research have found climate change is causing heatwaves to become longer, more frequent and more intense.

Researchers say human-induced climate change has driven the devastating heat impact in India and should be taken as a warning.


Paris summit rejects Russia sanctions relief, mulls Ukraine force

Paris summit rejects Russia sanctions relief, mulls Ukraine force
Updated 13 sec ago
Follow

Paris summit rejects Russia sanctions relief, mulls Ukraine force

Paris summit rejects Russia sanctions relief, mulls Ukraine force
  • President Emmanuel Macron hosted the meeting of Ukraine’s European allies and President Volodymyr Zelensky
  • The US claims tentative progress toward a ceasefire to end the three-year conflict

PARIS: European countries agreed at a summit in Paris Thursday to ramp up rather than lift sanctions on Russia over its war against Ukraine, as Britain and France began sketching out plans to send a “reassurance” force after any peace.
President Emmanuel Macron hosted the meeting of Ukraine’s European allies and President Volodymyr Zelensky in the latest effort to agree a coordinated policy after Donald Trump shocked Europe by opening direct talks with the Kremlin.
The US claims tentative progress toward a ceasefire to end the three-year conflict sparked by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
But as yet a peace deal appears far off and the meeting of over two dozen European heads of state and government also underlined differences within the “coalition of the willing,” with not all states signing onto the French-British plan to deploy troops postwar.
“He really wants to divide Europe and America, Putin really wants that,” Zelensky said after the summit, adding Kyiv wants Washington to be “stronger” toward the Kremlin.
He warned “everybody understood and understands that today Russia does not want any kind of peace.”
There appeared to be consensus around the table at the Elysee Palace that sanctions imposed against Russia should not be weakened, and rather intensified, until there is peace.
“There was complete clarity that now is not the time for the lifting of sanctions, quite the contrary — what we discussed is how we can increase sanctions to support the US initiative to bring Russia to the table,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said alongside Zelensky.
In a separate briefing, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said lifting sanctions would be a “grave mistake” and “makes no sense” without a truce.
As well as boosting Ukraine’s own armed forces, a key pillar of ensuring security and preventing further Russian invasions could be to deploy European troops to Ukraine, although until now it has been far from clear how this could happen.
Macron said after the summit that France and Britain were leading efforts to send a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after any end to the fighting.
“It does not have unanimity today, but we do not need unanimity to do this,” he added, saying a Franco-British delegation would head to Ukraine in the coming days for talks.
Macron emphasized that members of such a force would not be peacekeepers, deployed on the front line or any kind of substitute for the Ukrainian army.
Also, he said, not all of Ukraine’s European allies would be represented in the force, with some states not “having the capacity” and some reluctant due to the “political context.”
The Franco-British delegation would begin talks over where such a force could be deployed.
It would have the “character of deterrence against any potential Russian aggression,” he said.
Macron added that the summit agreed that he and Starmer would together “co-pilot” Europe’s ‘coalition of action’ for stable and durable peace.”
But Zelensky struck a more downbeat note, warning that “there are many questions” but “so far, there are few answers” about the force, who would lead it and what it can do.
Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has long made clear her reserves over the troop deployment plan, said she hoped the United States will be involved in the next European meeting on Ukraine and repeated Rome’s refusal to send troops to defend any peace deal.
But Starmer, hailing the summit, said: “This is Europe mobilizing together behind the peace process on a scale that we haven’t seen for decades, backed by partners from around the world.”
Ukraine has offered through the United States a 30-day ceasefire, but Russia has so far failed to respond, with the European allies growing all the more impatient.
Underscoring how far apart the sides remain, Ukraine accused Russia Thursday of violating a US-brokered agreement to refrain from targeting energy infrastructure with an artillery strike that caused a power outage in the city of Kherson.
The Ukrainian army meanwhile rejected Russian claims it had itself targeted energy sites.
“I think there should be a reaction from the US,” Zelensky told reporters in Paris, saying that energy facilities had been damaged in a strike Thursday and that it was “unclear who is monitoring” the pledges to halt such strikes.
Thursday’s meeting comes after the White House said Russia and Ukraine had agreed on the contours of a possible ceasefire in the Black Sea, during parallel talks with US officials in Saudi Arabia.


French prosecutors seek 7-year sentence for Sarkozy in Libya campaign financing trial

French prosecutors seek 7-year sentence for Sarkozy in Libya campaign financing trial
Updated 34 min 25 sec ago
Follow

French prosecutors seek 7-year sentence for Sarkozy in Libya campaign financing trial

French prosecutors seek 7-year sentence for Sarkozy in Libya campaign financing trial
  • The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office also called for a five-year ban on Sarkozy’s civic, civil and family rights
  • The accusations trace back to 2011, when a Libyan news agency and Gadhafi himself said that the Libyan state had secretly funneled millions of euros into Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign

PARIS: French prosecutors on Thursday requested a seven-year prison sentence and a 300,000-euro (around $325,000) fine for former President Nicolas Sarkozy, in connection with allegations that his 2007 presidential campaign was illegally financed by former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s government.
The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office, known by its French acronym PNF, also called for a five-year ban on Sarkozy’s civic, civil and family rights — a measure that would bar him from holding elected office or serving in any public judicial role.
The case, which opened in January and is expected to conclude on April 10, is considered the most serious of the multiple legal scandals that have clouded Sarkozy’s post-presidency.
The 70-year-old Sarkozy, who led France from 2007 to 2012, faces charges of passive corruption, illegal campaign financing, concealment of embezzlement of public funds and criminal association. He has denied any wrongdoing.
The accusations trace back to 2011, when a Libyan news agency and Gadhafi himself said that the Libyan state had secretly funneled millions of euros into Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign.
In 2012, the French investigative outlet Mediapart published what it said was a Libyan intelligence memo referencing a 50 million-euro funding agreement. Sarkozy denounced the document as a forgery and sued for defamation.
French magistrates later said that the memo appeared to be authentic, though no conclusive evidence of a completed transaction has been presented.
Investigators also looked into a series of trips by Sarkozy’s associates to Libya between 2005 and 2007.
In 2016, Franco-Lebanese businessman Ziad Takieddine told Mediapart that he had delivered suitcases filled with cash from Tripoli to the French Interior Ministry under Sarkozy. He later retracted his statement. That reversal is now the focus of a separate investigation into possible witness tampering.
Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, have both been placed under preliminary investigation in that case.
Sarkozy’s former ministers Claude Guéant, Brice Hortefeux, and Éric Woerth are also on trial, along with eight other defendants. But prosecutors have made clear the central figure is the former president himself — accused of knowingly benefiting from a “corruption pact” with a foreign dictatorship while campaigning to lead the French republic.
While Sarkozy has already been convicted in two other criminal cases, the Libya affair is widely seen as the most politically explosive — and the one most likely to shape his legacy.
In December 2024, France’s highest court upheld his conviction for corruption and influence peddling, sentencing him to one year of house arrest with an electronic bracelet. That case stemmed from tapped phone calls uncovered during the Libya investigation. In a separate ruling in February 2024, a Paris appeals court found him guilty of illegal campaign financing in his failed 2012 reelection bid.
Sarkozy has dismissed the Libya allegations as politically motivated and rooted in forged evidence. But if convicted, he would become the first former French president found guilty of accepting illegal foreign funds to win office.
A verdict is expected later this year.


Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries

Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries
Updated 43 min 1 sec ago
Follow

Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries

Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries
  • FBI and Justice Department for decades have been responsible for enforcing Espionage Act statutes governing the mishandling of national defense information
  • Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled at an unrelated news conference on Thursday that she was disinclined to do so

WASHINGTON: FBI Director Kash Patel was not part of a Signal chat in which other Trump administration national security officials discussed detailed attack plans, but that didn’t spare him from being questioned by lawmakers this week about whether the nation’s premier law enforcement agency would investigate.
Patel made no such commitments during the course of two days of Senate and House hearings, declining to comment on the possibility and testifying that he had not personally reviewed the text messages that were inadvertently shared with the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic who was mistakenly included on an unclassified Signal chat.
That Patel would be grilled on what the FBI might do was hardly surprising.
Even as President Donald Trump insisted “it’s not really an FBI thing,” the reality is that the FBI and Justice Department for decades have been responsible for enforcing Espionage Act statutes governing the mishandling — whether intentional or negligent — of national defense information like the kind shared on Signal, a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications but is not approved for classified information.
The Justice Department has broad discretion to open an investigation, though Attorney General Pam Bondi, who introduced Trump at a Justice Department event this month, signaled at an unrelated news conference on Thursday that she was disinclined to do so. She repeated Trump administration talking points that the highly sensitive information in the chat was not classified, though current and former US officials have said the posting of the exact launch times of aircraft and times that bombs would be released before those pilots were even in the air would have been classified.
She also quickly pivoted to two Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Joe Biden, who found themselves under investigation but never charged for allegedly mishandling classified information. Indeed, the department has conducted multiple high-profile investigations in recent years, albeit with differences in underlying facts and outcomes.
Multiple high-profile figures have found themselves under investigation in recent years over their handling of government secrets, but the differences in the underlying facts and the outcomes make it impossible to prognosticate what might happen in this instance or whether any accountability can be expected. There’s also precedent for public officials either to avoid criminal charges or be spared meaningful punishment.
“In terms of prior investigations, there were set-out standards that the department always looked at and tried to follow when making determinations about which types of disclosures they were going to pursue,” including the sensitivity of the information exposed the willfulness of the conduct, said former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Zweiback, who has handled classified information investigations.
A look at just a few of the notable prior investigations:
Hillary Clinton
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee was investigated but not charged for her use of a private email server for the sake of convenience during her time as secretary of state in the Obama administration. There appear to be some parallels with the Signal chat episode.
The politically fraught criminal investigation was initiated by a 2015 referral from the intelligence agencies’ internal watchdog, which alerted the FBI to the presence of potentially hundreds of emails containing classified information on that server. Law enforcement then set out to determine whether Clinton, or her aides, had transmitted classified information on a server not meant to host such material.
The overall conclusions were something of a mixed bag.
Then-FBI Director James Comey, in a highly unusual public statement, asserted that the bureau had found evidence that Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information but recommended against charges because he said officials could not prove that she intended to break the law or knew that the information she and her aides were communicating about was classified.
The decision was derided by Republicans who thought the Obama administration Justice Department had let a fellow Democrat off the hook. Among those critical were some of the very same participants in the Signal chat as well as Bondi, who as Florida’s attorney general spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention and mimicked the audience chant of “Lock her up!”
David Petraeus
Among the biggest names to actually get charged is Petraeus, the former CIA director sentenced in 2015 to two years’ probation for disclosing classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.
That material consisted of eight binders of classified information that Petraeus improperly kept in his house from his time as the top military commander in Afghanistan. Among the secret details in the “black books” were the names of covert operatives, the coalition war strategy and notes about Petraeus’ discussions with President Barack Obama and the National Security Council, prosecutors have said.
Petraeus, a retired four-star Army general who led US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, wound up pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor count of unauthorized retention and removal of classified material as part of a deal with Justice Department prosecutors. Some national security experts said it smacked of a double-standard for its lenient outcome.
Comey himself would later complain about the resolution, writing in a 2018 book that he argued to the Justice Department that Petraeus should have also been charged with a felony for lying to the FBI.
“A poor person, an unknown person — say a young black Baptist minister from Richmond — would be charged with a felony and sent to jail,” he said.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump
These investigations don’t bear much parallel to the Signal episode but nonetheless serve as examples of high-profile probes launched by the department into the mishandling of classified information.
Both found themselves investigated by Justice Department special counsels, with Trump being charged with hoarding top-secret records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Trump had taken those records after leaving office. He was also accused of showing off a Pentagon attack plan to a visitor at his Bedminster golf club.
The case was dismissed by a Florida-based judge who concluded that special counsel Jack Smith had been improperly appointed. Prosecutors abandoned the case after Trump won in November.
Biden, too, was investigated for his retention of classified information in his home following his tenure as vice president. A special counsel found some evidence that Biden had willfully retained the records but concluded that criminal charges were not merited.
Jeffrey Sterling
A former CIA officer, Sterling was convicted of leaking to a reporter details of a secret mission to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions by slipping flawed nuclear blueprints to the Iranians through a Russian intermediary.
He was sentenced in 2015 to 3 1/2 years in prison, a punishment whistleblower advocates and other supporters decried as impossible to square with Petraeus’ misdemeanor guilty plea just a month earlier.
The details of the operation disclosed by Sterling were published by journalist James Risen in his 2006 book “State of War.”
Sterling was charged in 2010, but the trial was delayed for years, in part because of legal wrangling about whether Risen could be forced to testify. Ultimately, prosecutors chose not to call Risen as a witness, despite winning legal battles allowing them to do so.


Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her

Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her
Updated 27 March 2025
Follow

Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her

Lawyer for Turkish student at Tufts University detained by feds calls for government to produce her
  • The request was made a day after Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, was stopped by masked federal agents after she left her home in Somerville
  • A federal judge presiding over her case ordered lawyers representing the government to respond to the motion Thursday morning

BOSTON: A lawyer for a Turkish national and doctoral student at Tufts University who was detained by US Department of Homeland Security agents filed an emergency motion Thursday requesting that the government produce her.
The request was made a day after Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, was stopped by masked federal agents after she left her home in Somerville, Massachusetts. A federal judge presiding over her case ordered lawyers representing the government to respond to the motion Thursday morning.
Video obtained by The Associated Press appears to show six people, their faces covered, taking away Ozturk’s phone as she yells and is handcuffed on Wednesday.
“We’re the police,” members of the group are heard saying in the video.
A bystander is heard asking, “Why are you hiding your faces?”
US District Judge Indira Talwani initially issued an order giving the government until Friday to answer why Ozturk was being detained. Talwani also ordered that Ozturk not be moved outside the District of Massachusetts without 48 hours advance notice.
The US Immigration and Custom Enforcement said Thursday that Ozturk was being held at a detention center in Basile, Louisiana, and has spoken to her lawyer. A senior Department of Homeland Security spokesperson also confirmed Ozturk’s detention and the termination of her visa.
“DHS and (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. A visa is a privilege, not a right. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated. This is common sense security,” the spokesperson told the AP.
The DHS did not provide examples of Ozturk’s support of Hamas, which is designated by the US government as a terrorist organization.
The arrest appears to be part of President Donald Trump’s pledge to deport students who, he said, engage in “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity,” applying it broadly to those who criticize Israel and protest its military campaign in Gaza.
Hamas’ invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking about 250 hostages. Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed over 50,000 people, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and destroyed much of the enclave.
Ozturk, who is Muslim, was meeting friends for iftar, a meal that breaks a fast at sunset during Ramadan, her attorney, Mahsa Khanbabai said.
She said no charges have been filed against Ozturk.
“We are in touch with local, state, and federal elected officials and hope that Rumeysa is provided the opportunity to avail herself of her due process rights,” Tufts University President Sunil Kumar said in a statement Wednesday night. “The university is actively working to support the Tufts community as it mobilizes its collective resources and contacts to ensure our students’ safety and wellbeing.”
Ozturk was one of four students last March who wrote an op-ed in The Tufts Daily criticizing the university’s response to student demands that Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,” disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.
After the op-ed was published, Ozturk’s name, photograph and work history were published on the website Canary Mission, a website that describes itself as documenting people who “promote hatred of the USA., Israel and Jews on North American college campuses.”
Friends of Ozturk’s say she did not play a prominent role in campus protests that erupted last spring against the Israel’s military in Gaza.
“There’s a very important distinction between writing a letter supporting the student senate and taking the kind of action they’re accusing her of, which I’ve seen no evidence of,” said Jennifer Hoyden, a friend and former classmate of Ozturk’s at Columbia University’s Teachers College.
“She came to this country seeking to expand her knowledge and contribute to a peaceful society,” Hoyden added. “I cannot stress enough how peaceful and kind and gentle she is as a human being.”


Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border

Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border
Updated 27 March 2025
Follow

Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border

Finnish government seeks to extend ban on migrants seeking asylum on Russia border
  • “The threat of instrumentalized migration at Finland’s eastern border remains high and unpredictable,” Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said
  • The exceptional emergency law was part of the government’s response to more than 1,300 migrants from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen

HELSINKI: Finland’s right-wing government has asked parliament to extend until the end of 2026 a law that allows it to reject asylum applications from migrants crossing its closed eastern border with Russia and to send them back, it said on Thursday.
NATO member Finland has accused Russia of weaponizing migration by encouraging migrants from third countries to cross their shared border, an assertion the Kremlin has repeatedly denied.
“The threat of instrumentalized migration at Finland’s eastern border remains high and unpredictable,” Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said in a statement, adding the situation at the border was tense but stable.
While Finland’s non-discrimination ombudsman says the law is at odds with international human rights commitments and EU asylum rules, the government of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo has said it must be extended to prevent possible future arrivals.
The exceptional emergency law, initially approved for a year in July 2024, was part of the government’s response to more than 1,300 migrants from countries such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen entering Finland from Russia in 2023. That phenomenon also prompted Finland to close the border with Russia.
The flow of migrants stopped after Finland closed down all official border crossing points at the end of 2023, and in 2024 only eight people crossed the border illegally after January, interior ministry data showed.
The government needs the support of three quarters of lawmakers in the 200-strong parliament to secure an extension of the law, a high bar reflecting the fundamental principles at stake.
The independent senior official charged with overseeing the legality of government actions said this month that the proposal to extend the asylum ban had insufficient reasoning, emphasising that emergency legislation must only be temporary in nature.
The official, known as the chancellor of justice, also said the threat assessment regarding migrants was insufficient and urged the government to explore alternatives.
The current emergency legislation expires on July 21.