Supreme Court sets date to hear Hadiya on her conversion to Islam and marriage

Supreme Court sets date to hear Hadiya on her conversion to Islam and marriage
Krishnadas Rajagopal NEW DELHI,  OCTOBER 30, 2017 13:00 IST
UPDATED: OCTOBER 30, 2017 17:16 IST
SHARE ARTICLE  147 PRINT A A A

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-orders-hadiya-to-be-produced-in-court-on-november-27/article19948767.ece?homepage=true

TH14HADIYA
Hadiya, is a 24-year-old - formerly known as Akhila - who converted to Islam.   | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement
The court overrode the submissions made by Hadiya’s father that she is indoctrinated and her consent should not be treated as absolute.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the production of Akhila alias Hadiya, a Hindu girl in Kerala who converted to Islam and subsequently married a Muslim man, before it on November 27 at 3 pm.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said the court first wanted to know whether her conversion to Islam and marriage to Shafin Jahan was of her own volition.

The court overrode the submissions made by the girl’s father, in whose custody she is, that she is indoctrinated and her consent should not be treated as absolute.

ALSO READ

Who is Hadiya?

The father, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, submitted that Jahan was a pawn in a “huge organisational apparatus” to radicalise young persons in Kerala. He said the questioning of his daughter should be done in-camera and not in open court.

“The issue pertains to marital relationship,” Chief Justice Misra remarked.

The court stood firm by its decision to hear the girl first, saying “We call the person and question her. At the time, if we have any doubts that she was not free to make her choice... then we will take a final call”.

NIA counsel and Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh said “indoctrination is an exception to free consent”.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly questioned how the Kerala High Court had annulled the marriage and transferred the custody of an adult to her father - all on the basis of a habeas corpus petition filed by the father.

“In normal cases of habeas corpus, the person is produced. But this was a case of indoctrination,” Mr. Singh submitted.

“In a composite and plural culture like ours, constitutional courts respond to radicalisation. In the U.S. and the U.K., courts respond well before a person crosses over to the realm of criminality. Courts cannot remain silent in plural societies,” Mr. Divan justified the High Court’s decision to annul the marriage.

“But she has been in confinement,” Chief Justice Misra remarked.

“She is not in confinement,” Mr. Divan said.

“Then produce her,” Chief Justice replied.

The court observed that it does not go by the “pulse or impulse of the society, but by the law of the land”.

The apex court had on August 4 passed an order, directing the NIA to use this case as a point to investigate whether there is a pattern of radicalisation in Kerala.

In an earlier hearing, the Bench, also comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, had asked how the Kerala High Court, on May 24, annulled the marriage of the girl, who is an adult, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“We will hear logical and legal arguments on two issues - can the High Court nullify a marriage exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and was an NIA probe necessary,” Chief Justice Misra had observed.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Haris Beeran, who had in that hearing appeared for Mr. Jahan, had strongly objected to the SC order for NIA investigation. Mr. Jahan has filed a plea for recall of the order.

“The order for NIA investigation strikes at the very foundation of multi-religious society... Two senior BJP functionaries have married members of minority communities... Call the girl here,” Mr. Dave had submitted.

The Kerala government, which had agreed to give the probe in favour of the NIA, also came forward with a plea to file an affidavit.

Former Supreme Court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, had refused the SC’s assignment to monitor the NIA probe.

Jahan’s recall petition had requested the apex court to stop the NIA probe in light of subsequent events showing the girl converted of her own free will and she is being confined and “tortured” by her parents.

Jahan also sought a direction to be issued to the Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Trivandrum, Kerala to produce the girl before the Supreme Court.

“NIA has already commenced investigation and already found a link, all without the guidance of Justice Raveendran, the worst fears of the petitioners have therefore been realised - that such an investigation is clearly not fair and is against the orders of the Supreme Court,” the application said.

It said that keeping the girl in custody against her will wherein she is not free to practice the religion she has chosen of her own free will is a clear violation of her fundamental rights,” it said. 

Hindustan belongs to Hindus: RSS Chief Mohan Bhagat

Hindustan belongs to Hindus: RSS Chief Mohan Bhagat

October 28, 2017

Mohan Bhagat

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/hindustan-is-a-country-of-hindus-but-doesnt-exclude-others-bhagwat/article19938031.ece


Mohan Bhagat, the RSS chief who addressed college-going RSS volunteers in Indore made some interesting comments on our country, Hindustan. The RSS chief said that Hindustan belongs to Hindus and it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t belong to others.

He said the government alone cannot bring development, and that it needs changes in the society.

“Whose country is Germany?… It’s a country of Germans, Britain is a country of Britishers, America is a country of Americans, and in the same way, Hindustan is a country of Hindus. It does not mean that Hindustan is not the country of other people,” Bhagwat said.

“The term Hindu covers all those who are the sons of Bharat Mata, descendants of Indian ancestors and who live in accordance with the Indian culture,” the RSS chief said.

No one leader or party can make the country great but it needs a change and we will have to prepare the society for it, he said.

“In ancient times, people used to look to God for development, but in ‘Kalyuga’ people look to the government… But the fact is, the government can go only as far as the society goes,” Bhagwat said.

“The society is the father of the government. The government can serve the society, but it cannot bring changes in the society. When the society brings changes in itself, this change reflects in the government and the system,” the RSS chief said.

To make India powerful, prosperous and “Vishwa guru”, the countrymen will have to rid their hearts of the thought of “discrimination on any grounds”, he added.

The Real Reason Muhammad Ali Converted To Islam

The Real Reason Muhammad Ali Converted To Islam
Just years following his conversion in 1964, Muhammad Ali got in a fight that prompted him to write down some reflections on what drew him to the faith in the first place.
People | © 2017 The Washington Post | Jonathan Eig, The Washington Post | Updated: October 27, 2017 07:57 IST
  by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Check what Nana Patekar endorses as the Icon of Talegaon. 1 & 2 BHK flats starting 28.6 … (Namrata’s Aikonic)
The Concept of Senior Living and How It Can Change Your Post Retirement Life (Ashiana Housing)
1.7K
SHARES
EMAIL
PRINT
39
COMMENTS
The Real Reason Muhammad Ali Converted To Islam
Ali didn't write about why Islam attracted him in spiritual terms. He wrote about it with pragmatism.
Muhammad Ali's conversion to Islam, in many ways, defined his career and legacy as a fighter with conviction. He went on to become an icon for American Muslims.

Just years following his conversion in 1964, he got in a fight that prompted him to write down some reflections on what drew him to the faith in the first place.

It wasn't a fight in the boxing ring, but an argument at home with his wife, Belinda.

Ali was out of control, Belinda said. He had lost all traces of humility. He was acting like he was God. You may call yourself the greatest, she told him, but you'll never be greater than Allah.

Like a schoolteacher, Belinda instructed Ali to sit down and write an essay. She asked him to write about why he became a Muslim. Ali obliged, taking out blank sheets of paper and a blue pen and beginning to write.

Belinda now goes by the name Khalilah Camacho-Ali. When I interviewed her for my biography of the legendary boxer, she gave me the essay. On Wednesday, I took it to the National Museum of African American History and Culture to see whether curators would include it in their collection.

I think it belongs there - not only because it reveals a great deal about Ali's character, but also because it teaches us about the religious life of one of the country's best-known African American athletes and activists. His story reminds us that even the most powerful spiritual journeys can have humble beginnings.

In the letter, Ali writes of his teenage days in Louisville when he was still known as Cassius Clay Jr. He says he was leaving a roller skating rink and scanning the sidewalk for pretty girls when he noticed a man in a black mohair suit selling newspapers for the Nation of Islam.

Ali had heard of the Nation and its leader, Elijah Muhammad, but he had never given serious thought to joining the group, which used some elements of Islam to preach black separatism and self-improvement.

Ali took a newspaper, mostly to be polite, but a cartoon caught his eye. It showed a white slave owner beating his black slave and insisting the man pray to Jesus. The message was that Christianity was a religion forced on slaves by the white establishment. "I liked that cartoon," Ali wrote. "It did something to me. And it made sense."
muhammad ali exhibition jonathan eig wp
Jonathan Eig, left, the author of the biography "Ali," tours the Muhammad Ali exhibition
It's interesting that Ali didn't answer his wife by writing in spiritual terms about why Islam attracted him. He wrote about it with pragmatism. The cartoon awakened him, and he realized that he hadn't chosen Christianity. He hadn't chosen the name Cassius Clay. So why did he have to keep those vestiges of slavery? And if he didn't have to keep his religion or his name, what else could he change?

In 1964, when he won the heavyweight championship, he publicly declared his conversion and made a personal declaration of independence: "I believe in Allah and in peace," he said. "I don't try to move into white neighborhoods. I don't want to marry a white woman. I was baptized when I was 12, but I didn't know what I was doing. I'm not a Christian anymore. I know where I'm going and I know the truth and I don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want."

In the years that followed, Ali continued to explore his religious views. He didn't always have a clear philosophy. He didn't always live up to the principles he espoused. But he never stopped asking questions.

When Elijah Muhammad died and the Nation of Islam remade itself, Ali embraced orthodox Islam. He studied the Koran.

As Parkinson's disease slowed his speech and made it more difficult for him to entertain fans, he would sometimes invite admirers to join him for long religious discussions. He loved comparing the Bible and the Koran. He often said that God didn't care about him for his boxing; God cared only about whether he had been a good person and lived up to the responsibilities that came with being a believer.

I'm not prepared to give Camacho-Ali all the credit, but it strikes me that the writing assignment she gave him was a good one. Religion demands that we constantly ask questions, not just accept things because they've been handed down to us. Ali's essay reminds us of that.

Ali acknowledged that his religious journey began with a search for pretty girls and took a turn with a newspaper cartoon. It's hardly the stuff of legend. But it's better than legend, really, because it's true.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

NIA files charge sheet against Zakir Naik in hate speech, incitement case

NIA files charge sheet against Zakir Naik in hate speech, incitement case
PTI MUMBAI,  OCTOBER 26, 2017 17:27 IST
UPDATED: OCTOBER 26, 2017 17:34 IST
SHARE ARTICLE  33  1 PRINT A A A
CHEP Ad
With its ‘share & reuse’ model, CHEP is driving sustainable and efficient supply chain solutions for the modern Indian market
ZAKIRNAIK
Zakir Naik. File   | Photo Credit: The Hindu
The controversial preacher has been accused of spreading hatred by his provocative speeches, funding terrorists and laundering several crores of rupees over the years.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Thursday filed a charge sheet in a special court here against controversial Islamic preacher Zakir Naik for allegedly inciting youth to take up terror activities, giving hate speeches and promoting enmity between communities.

“We filed a charge sheet against Naik,” an NIA official said.

The 51-year-old televangelist, who is currently abroad, is being probed under terror and money-laundering charges by the NIA. He fled from India on July 1, 2016, after terrorists in neighbouring Bangladesh claimed that they were inspired by his speeches.

The NIA had on November 18, 2016, registered a case against Mr. Naik at its Mumbai branch under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

His Mumbai-based NGO, Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), has already been declared an unlawful association by the Union home ministry.

The controversial preacher has been accused of spreading hatred by his provocative speeches, funding terrorists and laundering several crores of rupees over the years.

The Mumbai-based preacher came under the lens of security agencies after some terrorists allegedly involved in the attack on a cafe in Dhaka in July last year reportedly claimed they were inspired by his speeches.

Open To All Religions,' Says Saudi Prince.

Open To All Religions,' Says Saudi Prince. Investors Burst Into Applause

The remarks made by the kingdom's predominant leader were his strongest statements to date that the country's founding precepts aren't working.

World | © 2017 Bloomberg L.P. | Donna Abu-Nasr, Vivian Nereim, Bloomberg | Updated: October 25, 2017 08:25 IST

  by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored

A Binge Worthy Mini Series. Watch Now (Hotstar)

Naheeda’s Husband Abandoned Her and The Children When She Began To Fight Cancer (Milaap.org)

203

SHARES

EMAIL

PRINT

53

COMMENTS

'Open To All Religions,' Says Saudi Prince. Investors Burst Into Applause

Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has been on a meteoric rise to power since 2015

It was a comment that stunned the people in the room.

At an event Tuesday in Riyadh meant to highlight the kingdom's influence in the business world, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said Saudi Arabia was returning to "moderate" Islam and intended to "eradicate" extremism.

This in a country that was founded on an austere form of Islam and has been defined by it for decades. The remarks seemed aimed at religious ultra-conservatives who have been tolerated by the ruling Al Saud family in exchange for their support.

"We are only returning to what we used to be, to moderate Islam, open to the world and all religions," the 32-year-old prince said at the conference in the capital. "We won't waste 30 years of our lives dealing with any extremist ideas. We will eradicate extremism."

The remarks made by the kingdom's predominant leader were his strongest statements to date that the country's founding precepts aren't working. They came as he added to a host of reform promises by announcing plans to build a new city on the Red Sea coast with more than $500 billion in investments that will offer a lifestyle not available in today's Saudi Arabia. It's part of efforts he's spearheading to prepare Saudi Arabia for the post-oil era.

In the course of his meteoric rise to power since 2015, the prince has announced plans to sell a stake in oil giant Saudi Aramco and create the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, and has ended some social constraints, including a long-standing ban on female drivers. Women will be allowed to drive in June 2018.

And yet Saudi Arabia still enforces gender segregation in many public places and women remain marginalized in the workplace. It has also been criticized over its export of Wahhabism, a fundamentalist strain of Sunni Islam that has inspired extremist groups including al-Qaida and Islamic State. And it's not clear the prince can deliver on his promises.

"The risk here is that you can't just throw away the old fundamentals of support of the kingdom. It's like jumping off one train that's still moving and trying to get on another one," said Kamran Bokhari, a senior analyst with Geopolitical Futures and a senior fellow with the Center for Global Policy. "The political system of the kingdom is dependent on the religious establishment."

The changes are part of a blueprint, called Vision 2030, that the prince introduced last year to transform a major economy now reliant on petrodollars. Failure to find the right answers risks leaving the kingdom in limbo: An absolute monarchy with diminishing resources to fund an unsustainable version of state capitalism. Saudis will get more restless and the economy, already ground to a halt, could get worse.

The latest attempt at an overhaul was triggered by a sharp drop in oil revenue in 2014 that hasn't reversed. To avoid what the prince and his advisers saw as a catastrophic rundown on savings, they canceled projects deemed unnecessary, cut costly subsidies and halted payments to contractors.

At the forum, where men and women mingled as a group played traditional Arabic music, the prince sounded upbeat while talking about the new city, to be called Neom. The event was attended by some of the world's most prominent business people, keen to explore new opportunities in the kingdom. They burst into applause after Prince Mohammed made his comments about "open to the world and all religions" while speaking on a panel.

Rami Khouri, professor of journalism and senior public policy fellow at American University of Beirut and nonresident senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, said the prince's efforts were meant to impress the West.

"He's doing this to give a new face of Saudi Arabia aimed at the Western world, primarily, dazzling them with all the buttons that they want to hear pushed about entrepreneurship, liberalism, moderate Islam," said Khouri. "The leadership thinks that it can play with its society and its people like Silly Putty, that they can suddenly say now we've changed," he added. "He's reinforcing and reaffirming the weaknesses of traditional Arab autocratic leaderships rather than actually coming out with anything that's innovative and modern and creative."

Bokhari said for the crown prince and his father, King Salman, the slump in oil revenue means the old way of buying loyalty from interest groups is no longer viable.

"So what do you do?" said Bokhari. "You can't make everyone happy so you say I'll go with the youth, I'll go with the women and I'll go with the people who are modern and inshallah (God willing) enough of the religious scholars will give me a rubber stamp for what I am doing. It's not going to work."

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners

White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners
Since Trump took office, more Americans have been killed by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners.
Updated by Jennifer Williams@jenn_ruthjennifer@vox.com  Oct 2, 2017, 11:30am EDT
 TWEET

 SHARE

Las Vegas police stand guard along the streets outside the Route 91 Harvest Country music festival grounds on October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. David Becker/Getty Images
When President Donald Trump signed his since-revised executive order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, he claimed it was to protect Americans from “radical Islamic terrorists.”

“We don’t want ‘em here,” Trump told reporters at the Pentagon, where he signed the order in January.

But in the eight months since Trump took office, more Americans have been killed in attacks by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners.

Radical Islamic terrorists inspired or directed by groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda do pose a clear threat to the US. There is no question about that. Before last night’s deadly shooting in Las Vegas, the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history occurred in June 2016 when an ISIS-inspired man opened fire in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 people and wounding 53.

And ISIS-linked militants have killed or injured dozens of people in countries like England, France, and Canada so far this year, including two women killed in a stabbing attack in Marseille, France, and several people injured in a car-ramming attack in Edmonton, Canada, just this weekend.

But here at home, the bigger threat has come from a very different kind of attacker, one with no ties to religion generally or Islamist extremism specifically.

Here are just a few of the attacks that have occurred in 2017:

Sunday night, a 64-year-old white man from Nevada opened fire on a crowd of more than 22,000 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing more than 50 and wounding more than 200.
In August, a 20-year-old white Nazi sympathizer from Ohio sped his car into a crowd of anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing a woman and injuring at least 19 others.
In June, a 66-year-old white man from Illinois shot at Republican Congress members during an early morning baseball practice, severely wounding several people including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House of Representatives Majority Whip.
In March 2017, a 28-year-old white man from Baltimore traveled to New York City with the explicit aim of killing black men. He stabbed 66-year-old Timothy Caughman to death and was charged with terrorism by New York state authorities.
In May, a 35-year-old white man from Oregon named Jeremy Joseph Christian began harassing Muslim teenagers on a train in Portland, telling them “We need Americans here!” Two men interceded; Christian then stabbed and killed them both.
In fact, between 2001 and 2015, more Americans were killed by homegrown right-wing extremists than by Islamist terrorists, according to a study by New America, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, DC.

A June 2017 study by Reveal and the Center for Investigative Reporting found a similar pattern:


Even the “radical Islamic terrorists” are usually US citizens
In Trump’s very first speech to Congress, he claimed that “the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country.”

But none of the perpetrators of the major US terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam in the past 15 years have come from the nations on Trump’s travel ban (either the original one or the new, revised version that was released late last month). In fact, the country home to the biggest number of terrorists who have carried out successful attacks inside the US is the US itself.

The San Bernardino shooting that killed 14 people was carried out by an American-born US citizen of Pakistani descent and a lawful permanent US resident of Pakistani descent. The Orlando nightclub shooter who murdered 49 people was an American-born US citizen of Afghan descent. The Boston marathon bombers, who identified as ethnic Chechen, came to the US from Kyrgyzstan and grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts, before carrying out attacks that left three dead. Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, was Pakistani-American. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was born in Virginia to Palestinian parents.

And as my colleague Zack Beauchamp has written, the average likelihood of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in which an immigrant participated in any given year is one in 3.6 million — even including the 9/11 deaths. The average American is more likely to die from their own clothing or a toddler with a gun than an immigrant terrorist. But we’re not banning guns and T-shirts from coming into the country.

Adopting extremist views and committing horrendous acts of violence in the name of some "righteous" cause, be it religion or politics or just plain old hatred, isn't something that only Muslims, or Arabs, or immigrants, or any other group of people do. It's something humans do.

Woman, 30, Allegedly Gang-Raped In Front Of Husband, Child In UP's Muzaffarnagar

Woman, 30, Allegedly Gang-Raped In Front Of Husband, Child In UP's Muzaffarnagar

https://www.ndtv.com/muzaffarnagar-news/woman-30-allegedly-gang-raped-in-front-of-husband-baby-in-ups-muzaffarnagar-1759760?stky

In Muzaffarnagar, four men allegedly gang-raped the woman after tying up her husband. The infant cried through her ordeal.
Muzaffarnagar | Reported by Alok Pandey, Edited by Nidhi Sethi | Updated: October 07, 2017 14:30 IST
  by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Watch Captain America: Civil War on Hotstar Premium Ad-Free (Hotstar)
Check what Nana Patekar endorses as the Icon of Talegaon. 1 & 2 BHK flats starting 28.6 … (Namrata’s Aikonic)
7.2K
SHARES
EMAIL
PRINT
269
COMMENTS
Woman, 30, Allegedly Gang-Raped In Front Of Husband, Child In UP's Muzaffarnagar
Click to Play

The accused beat up the husband and allegedly raped his wife at gun-point in Muzaffarnagar.
MUZAFFARNAGAR: 
HIGHLIGHTS
The woman and her husband had taken their child to a doctor on motorbike
On their way back, 4 men intercepted in a car, asked them to get off
They hit the man, dragged his wife to nearby field to allegedly rape her
 A 30-year-old woman in Uttar Pradesh was allegedly gang-raped by four men in front of her husband and their three-month-old baby, the police said. The woman and her husband, 35, had taken their baby to a pediatrician and were returning home on a motorbike in Muzaffarnagar when they were waylaid by four men, who were carrying weapons, in a car. They stopped them, snatched the baby from her and beat up the man. Then they dragged the woman to a sugarcane field.

The men took turns to allegedly rape her after tying up her husband. They threatened to kill the infant who cried through her ordeal. After they were done, they warned the couple against raising an alarm and fled, police said.

"Four men dragged me to a sugarcane farm and raped me at gun-point. They threatened to kill my child, also tied and beat up my husband," the woman alleged according to news agency ANI.

The family screamed for help and a few farmers from a nearby village rushed to rescue them.

woman gang raped in up
The police are searching for the accused and investigation is underway.
The police were informed and the cops took the family to the hospital for treatment and her medical examination. A search for the accused is on, a senior police officer said.

"We are waiting for her medical report. A case has been registered against the four and investigation is underway," said Ajay Sahdev, SP Rural, Muzaffarnagar.

The Next Islamic State Would Be Deadlier

The Next Islamic State Would Be Deadlier
© 2017 The Washington Post | Published: October 05, 2017 11:31 IST
  by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Feed Them, Educate Them, Donate Now! (Akshaya Patra)
Hitler's Final Bunker Discovered, Wait Till You See Inside (Trend Chaser)
1
SHARE
EMAIL
PRINT
1
COMMENTS
For much of the past year, I've lived a double life. I've embedded within Iraq's Special Operations forces throughout the battle of Mosul, witnessing first-hand a truly remarkable struggle against the Islamic State. But I've also continued my four-year field research into the Islamic State, interviewing the group's fighters and supporters to understand the conflict through their eyes.

This double life has led me to a singular perspective: As encouraging as it has been for coalition forces to make so much headway, winning conflicts and taking back land won't stop the Islamic State for long. Only widespread change in governmental policies can do that. Local policies dealing with Islamic State militants, ex-fighters and potential recruits lag behind the curve not only in Iraq, but also in almost every country from Southeast Asia to Western Europe.

In countries such as Libya, Yemen, the Philippines, Nigeria and Somalia, governments have little physical control over parts of their territories, which makes them easy territorial targets for the Islamic State. But countries with too much control - the Caucasus, Central Asian republics and some African nations - also contribute to the crisis by making life so unbearable for citizens that they leave to find a better life in the group's caliphate.

isis reuters
The Islamic State isn't currently gaining new ground, but the potential for gaining new fighters waits in the wings.
It should come as no surprise then that one of the biggest groups of Islamic State foreign fighters (and their families) are Uzbeks. Uzbekistan has a freedom-ranking similar to North Korea and, according to human rights organizations, "wide-scale violation of virtually all basic human rights."

In the places where governments cannot fulfill their duties to provide for and protect civilians, not only can a relatively well armed group easily take control, the local population, tired of bad government, will not resist a takeover. Often, people even welcome it. In a 2016 survey of post-Islamic State territory in Iraq that I conducted, 30 percent of civilian respondents said security and policing actually improved under the Islamic State, compared with only 5 percent who said that it had become worse. The extremist group was not only strong enough to take the territory, it was also capable of governing it - and in some places, still is.

While recent military successes have given governments a chance to address issues such as rampant corruption, there are few signs of improvement. There was so much corruption among Iraq's security forces that al-Qaida used it to its advantage. If it wanted to target a civilian for recruitment, it would report that person to Iraq's internal security as an al-Qaida member. The civilian would then be arrested, thrown in prison, beaten and tortured. He would likely only be released after his family paid money through extortion. After such an experience, civilians are often more than ready to volunteer for any anti-government movement.

Overly controlling countries have also not changed - and in some cases have even gotten worse. Many governments have further cracked down on religion and personal freedoms in response to the Islamic State. By doing so, they have not only increased grievances among those most likely to fight but also pushed those people underground.

mosul isis reuters
The next Islamic State would be more deadly and more widespread.
Although successful military operations have pushed back the Islamic State's territorial conquest and won time for government reform, that time window is short. The Islamic State is exploring areas with weak security all over the world (even as far away as the Philippines) and is even trying to regain territory in recently-liberated areas of Iraq. Members are either waging insurgency war in remote rural areas or hiding in towns to prepare for future attacks.


The Islamic State isn't currently gaining new ground, but the potential for gaining new fighters waits in the wings. Enter the next generation of extremists: local Sunni civilians who lost everything in the war and are already afraid for their safety, and a new enlistment of young, smart sympathizers who can use their expertise in engineering, science and the military to serve the goals of an armed group.

The next Islamic State, commanded by experienced fighters thirsty for revenge, would be more deadly and more widespread. The anti-Islamic State coalition in Iraq and Syria is dominating the region through air power, but extremists have already begun developing their own drones. Today, these drones are made of recycled plastic and duct tape; next time, they could well be more dangerous.

Looking at ongoing operations, both a former Islamic State foreign fighter and I have reason to be optimistic. I am optimistic that the Iraqi government will regain control of the territory. And he is optimistic that his former brothers-in-arms will finally go to heaven - and that new fighters will come to take their place.

The writer is an International Security Fellow at Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Zakia Jafri's Plea Against PM Narendra Modi In 2002 Riots Case Rejected: 10 Facts

Zakia Jafri's Plea Against PM Narendra Modi In 2002 Riots Case Rejected: 10 Facts
Zakia Jafri's petition alleged that the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi had turned a blind eye to the violence and had sought a criminal trial against him and 58 others.
All India | Edited by Shuchi Shukla | Updated: October 05, 2017 13:14 IST
  by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored

Zakia Jafri's Plea Against PM Narendra Modi In 2002 Riots Case Rejected: 10 FactsCourt rejects Zakia Jafri's plea challenging clean chit to Gujarat's top politicians in riots case (file)
AHMEDABAD:  The Gujarat High Court has rejected Zakia Jafri's petition challenging a clean chit by a Supreme Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to the state's top politicians including then Chief Minister Narendra Modi and bureaucrats in the 2002 Gujarat riots. The court has not accepted Ms Jafri's allegation of "a larger conspiracy" behind the riots. Zakia Jafri's husband Ehsaan Jafri, a Congress leader, was one of 69 people killed by rioters who attacked Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad on 28 February 2002.
Here is your 10-point cheat-sheet to this story:
The high court's Justice Sonia Gokani, while rejecting Ms Jafri's allegations, said she can move higher forums or the Supreme Court against today's ruling.
Zakia Jafri, 79, had approached the high court in March 2014 against a lower court verdict accepting the SIT's report, which concluded that then Chief Minister Modi took all possible steps to control the riots that swept through Gujarat after coaches of the Sabarmati Express train were set afire at Godhra station in the state, killing 59 people.
The petition filed by Zakia Jafri and the NGO Citizen for Justice and Peace, run by Teesta Setalvad, alleged that the then Chief Minister had turned a blind eye to the violence and had sought a criminal trial against PM Modi and 58 others.
Justice Gokani had started final hearings in the case in 2015. The SIT's lawyer defended its findings, underlining that these have already been reviewed by the top court's amicus curiae, or friend of the court.
The SIT report, filed in 2012, had said no charges made by Zakia Jafri were maintainable and had questioned the motive behind her filing her complaint four years after the riots. In 2013, the lower court rejected Ms Jafri's petition against the report and she moved the high court.
The massacre at Gulbarg Society - a cluster of 29 bungalows and 10 apartment buildings housing mostly Muslims - was among the 10 major Gujarat riot cases re-investigated by the special team appointed by the Supreme Court.
Ehsaan Jafri, a former Congress parliamentarian, was among 69 people dragged out, hacked and burnt by the rioters. The Congress leader's frantic phone calls to police officers and senior politicians for help went unanswered, Zakia Jafri has alleged.
Last year, a special court in Ahmedabad convicted 24 attackers for the massacre that the court described as the "darkest day in the history of civil society." But the court, which also acquitted 36 people including a BJP corporator in this case, underlined that there was no larger conspiracy.
The verdict was seen as another setback for the Jafris, who alleged that people involved in the massacre were allowed to get away. "They must get the punishment as they killed people and destroyed their families. I saw them doing it with my own eyes," Ms Jafri said.
The trial court had ruled that Mr Jafri opening fire in self-defence had "acted as a catalyst and infuriated the mob".