“Zawahiri’s reference to a contemporary issue has also confirmed that he is alive, contrary to suggestions that he had died of natural causes in 2020,” the Indian Express noted.
Al-Zawahri took over leadership of al-Qaeda in 2011 following the death of its former chief, Osama bin Laden.
Al-Qaeda Leader Resurfaces with Video on Indian Burqa Controversy
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri appeared in a video released online on Tuesday in which he praised an Indian Muslim woman for defiantly shouting, “allahu akbar,” to a group of Hindu nationalists in southern India’s Karnataka state in February, the Indian Express reported on Thursday.
Al-Zawahri addressed the February 8 Karnataka incident during a roughly nine-minute video posted online on April 5 by As-Sahab, which is the official media wing of al-Qaeda, an international jihadist terror organization.
Even if our intelligence knew the exact location, we already know that creepy Joe will not have him killed. Biden told Obama he shouldn’t take out UBL.
Muslim Women Who Don’t Wear Hijab Will Face Allah’s Wrath On Judgement Day, Lawyer Tells Karnataka High Court
Senior advocate cited a story from Islam’s founder Mohammad’s life where he saw women being tormented in hell.
A lawyer told the Karnataka high court on Thursday that Muslim women who do not wear the hijab as ordained by Quran are considered as “sinners” in the religion and would face the wrath [of Allah] on Judgement day.
Senior Advocate AM Dar, appearing for some Muslim girl students from Udupi district, said, “Non-covering by a woman will mean the lady will be sent to the place where there will be wrath on Judgement Day to give ‘hisaab’. We have to be ready to face Judgement. To cover head is essential religious practice for us.”
Sure thing, Mr Lawyer. Now explain that to your coreligionists who keep telling us we must not interfere with what women chose to wear:
Anything & anyone opposing Moslem mores becomes an instant target for assassination, slander and vilification.
‘Europe’s obsession with Muslim women’s clothing choices and specifically the hijab is entwined with Islamophobia, racism and misogyny,’ says campaigner
It’s not “Europes obsession”. It is the Mohammedan obsession to force hijabbery on EVERY WOMAN. But like socialist agitprops, MuBros always accuse the other of what they are guilty of.
The class room Hijab ban in the south-west state Karnataka has raised tensions with India’s Muslim minority, who make up about 13% of the country’s 1.35 billion people
These f*kcers are then telling Western Moonbats that “we can’t tell women what to wear”.
Melbourne families stranded in India are pleading with the federal government to change its decision to cut the number of flights from the subcontinent. They say they are in danger and need to come home immediately. https://t.co/5zYfOfohG3 @NickMcCallum7 #7NEWS pic.twitter.com/BpMj6e90FB— 7NEWS Melbourne (@7NewsMelbourne) April 23, 2021
Let that sink in and understand what this means…— 🇨🇦 Cynner69 🇨🇦 (@Cynner691) February 24, 2022
Throughout the history of liberation of Muslim women, hijab and burqa are been seen as a symbol of their subjugation and something that needs to be cast away. Writes Agrah Pandit
The Indian intelligentsia is at it again. From comparing the prescription of any religious dress in schools with Draupadi’s cheerharan to rhapsodising about the indoctrinated burqa-clad students, the Left has done it yet again. Their cheerleading for this anachronistic attire makes one wonder who is really under the hijab — Muslim women, who are either forced or cognitively constrained to not overstep the male-defined societal norms of clothing or our liberals who are trained (and funded) to support the most radical of Islamist opinions.
f the veil lets women take a peek into the world through a narrow slit, then the metaphorical veil of a rotten ideology lets the Indian Left take a narrow, conservative and obscurantist stand on a subject of national importance. By bringing to the foreground the most belligerent of identities/customs/dresses as the defining and authentic marker of Islam, they do disservice to the cause of impressionable girls and secularism.
Thanks to liberals, public morality would henceforth be defined by the touchstone of wearing a hijab.
The Islamic veil is essentially a symbol of women’s forced submission and men’s hegemonic superiority. It negates equality between the sexes and perpetuates violence against feminine beauty, identity and dignity. More than just a sartorial piece, hijab carries with it the diktat of moral interdiction of confining women, of enslaving them.
Throughout the history of liberation of Muslim women, the veil has been seen as a symbol of their subjugation and something that needs to be cast away. The slogan “Khaharam hijab-e to koubandeh tar az khoon-e man ast (Women! Your veil is more assertive than our blood)” was the most popular slogan during the ascendency of misogynistic radical Islam in Iran. The foremost task of the Taliban after capturing power was to force women in veil—both physically and figuratively. The connection between cultural bigotry and political tyranny has been too evident to miss.
However, Indian liberals have had an entirely different take on this. They have bent over backwards to prove how liberating the burqa or hijab actually are and how essential a part they are of authentic Islam. Giving respite to over-worked mullahs and maulvis, liberals have taken upon themselves to prove that the veil is not a token of anachronism and tyranny; but actually stands for freedom of expression. Liberal media recently has been replete with justification of the hijab based on the Quran. No, not the Muslim clerics but Indian liberals, henceforth are official spokespersons of Islam.
Thanks to their hard work, many newspapers have also reported a spurt in the sale of hijab and burqa across the nation. By attributing piety to the Islamic dress, liberals are bolstering radical political Islam that views hijab as not a choice but a choice less divine obligation. It is a given that one cannot not want! Not lagging behind Islamist fundamentalists, liberals have sought to turn the hijab into the abode of divine Muslim womanhood. However, such notions carry the dictat of a moral interdiction that a woman is pious only if she wears a veil.
Equating modesty to a veiled woman goes hand-in-hand with its corollary, that is, denigration of an unveiled woman, who is impious and hence worthy of all sorts of crimes in the form of divine punishment. Predictably, a Congress leader has now concluded that wearing a hijab saves you from rape! To liberals’ credit, women are being pigeonholed afresh into pious versus rape-worthy categories based solely on their dress.
The same classification, once concretised in the subconscious, would be employed by the bigoted Muslims to carry forward their agenda of love jihad and grooming jihad as a means to educate the “fallen” non-Muslim women.
Liberals are meant to be socially progressive and forward-looking. However, in India they have been catering to the most illiberal of Islamists voices, especially since the end of their intellectual hegemony that came with the decline of Congress-Left parties, their traditional patrons.
Nationalist authors have exposed their intellectual hollowness. All this does not let our liberals be at rest. Post-hegemony guilt and sidelining may probably explain their increasing association with Islamists.
Remember how Gurugram public roads were termed into “Muslim prayer sites” by our secularist thinkers?
Conveniently forsaking the Kantian dictum that everything must submit to critique, Liberals have submitted their good sense to the most radical of voices, while discrediting themselves repeatedly in the process. They have opposed uniform civil code, inflamed religious tension and have indulged in duplicity and verbal jugglery of the worst kind. But mind it, their patronising comfort with radicalism has extended only to the interests of one particular religion, i.e., Islam. Instead of promoting an all-encompassing, inclusive and essentially Indian identity, they are inflaming Muslims’ all-subsuming, exclusive identity and monolithic confrontational image.
In the conflict between modern versus regressive, tolerance versus fundamentalism, education versus politics, harmonised versus problematised, realism versus cynicism, polyphony versus sabotage, constitution versus sharia, universal versus particular, morals versus personal gain, liberals have comfortably chosen the latter over time. Indian schools are the latest witness to their selfish politics.