<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/caa-fallout-member-of-malaysian-central-government-coalition-says-pm-mahathir-has-overreacted-269450">Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohama</a>d said on Saturday that Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading amongst themselves through gold and barter system in a bid to prevent any future sanctions on them.

"I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, at the end of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/malaysia-defends-muslim-summit-shunned-by-saudi-slammed-by-oic-269055">Islamic summit </a>in Malaysia.&nbsp;

"We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect."

It should be noted that Iran has been badly affected by the US-imposed sanctions that were put in place last year. The US allies: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt have also cut diplomatic and trade ties with Qatar nearly two and a half years ago over allegations that the country backs terrorism.

The leaders attending the summit agreed that they need to push trade amongst themselves and transact in each other's currencies.&nbsp;

The Malaysian PM praised Iran and Qatar for withstanding economic embargoes and asked the Muslim world to be self-reliant to face future threats.&nbsp;

Mahathir also said that there was concern of Muslims undergoing assimilation in non-Muslim countries.&nbsp;

"We support integration but assimilation to the extent of shedding our religion is unacceptable," the Malaysian prime minister said.

The four-day summit was boycotted by Saudi Arabia, who slammed the event for undermining the Saudi-based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which represents 57 Muslim-majority nations. Malaysia responded to Saudi's claims by saying that it had invited all the OIC members to the summit but only about 20 nations showed up.

In the last day of the event, no joint statement from the members who attended the summit was released.&nbsp;

(with inputs from Reuters) 
&nbsp;

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday that Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading amongst themselves through gold and barter system in a bid to prevent any future sanctions on them.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday that Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading amongst themselves through gold and barter system in a bid to prevent any future sanctions on them. "I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, at the end of the Islamic summit in Malaysia. "We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect." It should be noted that Iran has been badly affected by the US-imposed sanctions that were put in place last year. The US allies: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt have also cut diplomatic and trade ties with Qatar nearly two and a half years ago over allegations that the country backs terrorism. The leaders attending the summit agreed that they need to push trade amongst themselves and transact in each other's currencies. The Malaysian PM praised Iran and Qatar for withstanding economic embargoes and asked the Muslim world to be self-reliant to face future threats. Mahathir also said that there was concern of Muslims undergoing assimilation in non-Muslim countries. "We support integration but assimilation to the extent of shedding our religion is unacceptable," the Malaysian prime minister said. The four-day summit was boycotted by Saudi Arabia, who slammed the event for undermining the Saudi-based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which represents 57 Muslim-majority nations. Malaysia responded to Saudi's claims by saying that it had invited all the OIC members to the summit but only about 20 nations showed up. In the last day of the event, no joint statement from the members who attended the summit was released. (with inputs from Reuters)

Malaysian PM says Muslim nations considering trade through gold, barter system to avoid sanctions

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman may be seeking to revert his kingdom to an unspecified form of moderate Islam but erasing the impact of 40 years of global funding of ultra-conservative, intolerant strands of the faith is unlikely to be eradicated by decree.

Not only because ultra-conservatism has taken root in numerous Muslim countries and communities, but also because it has given opportunistic politicians a framework to pursue policies that appeal to bigoted and biased sentiments in bids to strengthen their grip on power. Nowhere is that more evident than in Asia, home to several of the Islamic world&#39;s most populous countries.

Examples of the fallout abound among recipients of Saudi largess. They include institutionalised discrimination in Pakistan against Ahmadis, a sect considered heretic by orthodox Muslims, as well as biased policies towards non-Muslims and Shiites in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Basic freedoms in Bangladesh are being officially and unofficially curtailed in various forms as a result of domestic struggles originally enabled by successful Saudi pressure to amend the country&#39;s constitution in 1975 to recognise Islam as its official religion. The amendment was a condition for Saudi recognition of the young republic and the promise of substantial financial support.

Reports that Prince Mohammed in a dramatic gesture to Shiites, who have been discriminated against for years in the kingdom and demonised by its religious and political leaders as part of Saudi Arabia&rsquo;s public affairs war with Iran, plans to visit the Shiite religious citadel of Najaf in Iraq is likely to do little to change things on the ground in Muslim majority nations in Asia.

Neither will his meetings with Christian religious luminaries in Egypt and elsewhere even if they demonstrate that Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islam&rsquo;s two most holy cities, is, under Prince Mohammed&rsquo;s guidance, embracing principles of inter-faith dialogue and religious tolerance.

Reporting on a visit to the ultra-conservative Indonesian region of Aceh, Islam scholar Kamaruzzaman Bustamam-Ahmad noted that &quot;supporters for anti-Shi&rsquo;ah in Aceh are Wahabism, an Islamic political party, a group of young Acehnese who finished their study in the Middle East....They play their role in urban areas. After the Tsunami (in 2004), many of pesantrens (religious seminaries) from Wahabism were built in Aceh. They received funding from &#39;outside&#39; Aceh.&quot;

Bangladeshi journalist Ahmedur Rashid Chowdhury, who fled his country after a failed assassination attempt by religious militants, recently sketched Bangladesh&#39;s migration from a nation founded with aspirations of &quot;economic, political and intellectual emancipation&quot; to one in which the &quot;will of the military and its leadership was key in shaping politics towards selfishness and subornation&rdquo; and &ldquo;political parties are willing to go to any length to hold on to power.&quot;

It was a process abetted by Saudi Arabia. Chowdhury noted that &quot;the healthy trend of democratic and progressive politics was never able to regain a footing in Bangladesh&quot; with freedom of speech and the press as one of its major casualties. Unlike human rights lawyer and writer Ikhtisad Ahmed, Chowdhury shied away from referring to the role of Saudi Arabia and Saudi-inspired ultra-conservatism in his country&rsquo;s political development.

One strand of ultra-conservatism, Salafism, that Saudi interior minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz wanted to elevate to an official Islamic school of thought shortly before his death in 2012, gained, according to&nbsp; Ahmed, currency under the coalition government in the first years of the 21st century formed by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami, a controversial group that opposed the country&#39;s independence.

Like in Pakistan, of which Bangladesh was part until, 1971, the military as well as political parties maintained opportunistic ties to militants such as Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad that were often as opposed to secularism as they were to Saudi-style monarchy.

As a result, Bangladesh, the world&rsquo;s fourth largest Muslim nation, is at the heart of a struggle between liberalism and ultra-conservatism that questions Saudi Arabia&#39;s legacy and is about reforms that go beyond anything envisioned by Prince Mohammed. It is a battle in which free-thinking, journalists, writers and intellectuals have paid a heavy price.

In the latest incident earlier this month, prominent scholar, award-winning science fiction author and outspoken critic of religious militants, Muhammed Zafar Iqbal was stabbed and seriously injured in a knife attack in the north-eastern town of Sylhet.

Iqbal was the latest victim of more than 30 machete attacks, shootouts, and bombings in Bangladesh in the past three years, including last year&#39;s assault on the Holy Artisan Bakery in Dhaka in which 22 hostages were killed.

The country&#39;s battle was fuelled by a 2010 Bangladesh Supreme Court decision to roll back the Saudi-inspired amendment of the constitution and restore secularism as its basic tenant as well as the execution of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders for war crimes during the 1971 Pakistani-Indian war that gave birth to Bangladesh.

In response, ultra-conservatives and militants demanded death for &quot;atheists and apostates&quot; who had demonstrated in favour of the death penalties, stricter anti-blasphemy legislation and a crackdown on alleged un-Islamic cultural practices.

To be sure, Saudi Arabia, a country that is itself in transition, is unlikely to be backing the ultra-conservatives and militants. Yet, their struggle and deep-seated polarisation in Bangladesh are offshoots of the kingdom&rsquo;s past ultra-conservative support and the creation of an environment in which politicians and state organs can opportunistically exploit religious sentiment.

Criticism of the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed&rsquo;s weak response to the violence, if not inaction, coupled with the battle for the soul of Bangladesh serves as evidence that reversing the fallout of four decades of Saudi promotion of ultra-conservatism as an anti-dote to Iranian revolutionary zeal will take time and often be volatile. The same is true for efforts to counter creeping ultra-conservatism in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia.

In fact, what the struggles in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia suggest is that today&#39;s culprits are not Saudi Arabia, even if it bears a responsibility, but politicians and/or national governments. Said Chowdhury: &quot;The failure to bring culprits to justice in many of the recent attacks in Bangladesh has &#39;been the deliberate goal of the government. It supports their ambition to continue holding on to power by silencing critics and pandering to the religious right&#39;.&quot;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the authors and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Reports that Prince Mohammed in a dramatic gesture to Shiites, plans to visit the Shiite religious citadel of Najaf in Iraq is likely to do little to change things on the ground in Muslim majority nations in Asia.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman may be seeking to revert his kingdom to an unspecified form of moderate Islam but erasing the impact of 40 years of global funding of ultra-conservative, intolerant strands of the faith is unlikely to be eradicated by decree. Not only because ultra-conservatism has taken root in numerous Muslim countries and communities, but also because it has given opportunistic politicians a framework to pursue policies that appeal to bigoted and biased sentiments in bids to strengthen their grip on power. Nowhere is that more evident than in Asia, home to several of the Islamic world's most populous countries. Examples of the fallout abound among recipients of Saudi largess. They include institutionalised discrimination in Pakistan against Ahmadis, a sect considered heretic by orthodox Muslims, as well as biased policies towards non-Muslims and Shiites in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Basic freedoms in Bangladesh are being officially and unofficially curtailed in various forms as a result of domestic struggles originally enabled by successful Saudi pressure to amend the country's constitution in 1975 to recognise Islam as its official religion. The amendment was a condition for Saudi recognition of the young republic and the promise of substantial financial support. Reports that Prince Mohammed in a dramatic gesture to Shiites, who have been discriminated against for years in the kingdom and demonised by its religious and political leaders as part of Saudi Arabia’s public affairs war with Iran, plans to visit the Shiite religious citadel of Najaf in Iraq is likely to do little to change things on the ground in Muslim majority nations in Asia. Neither will his meetings with Christian religious luminaries in Egypt and elsewhere even if they demonstrate that Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islam’s two most holy cities, is, under Prince Mohammed’s guidance, embracing principles of inter-faith dialogue and religious tolerance. Reporting on a visit to the ultra-conservative Indonesian region of Aceh, Islam scholar Kamaruzzaman Bustamam-Ahmad noted that "supporters for anti-Shi’ah in Aceh are Wahabism, an Islamic political party, a group of young Acehnese who finished their study in the Middle East....They play their role in urban areas. After the Tsunami (in 2004), many of pesantrens (religious seminaries) from Wahabism were built in Aceh. They received funding from 'outside' Aceh." Bangladeshi journalist Ahmedur Rashid Chowdhury, who fled his country after a failed assassination attempt by religious militants, recently sketched Bangladesh's migration from a nation founded with aspirations of "economic, political and intellectual emancipation" to one in which the "will of the military and its leadership was key in shaping politics towards selfishness and subornation” and “political parties are willing to go to any length to hold on to power." It was a process abetted by Saudi Arabia. Chowdhury noted that "the healthy trend of democratic and progressive politics was never able to regain a footing in Bangladesh" with freedom of speech and the press as one of its major casualties. Unlike human rights lawyer and writer Ikhtisad Ahmed, Chowdhury shied away from referring to the role of Saudi Arabia and Saudi-inspired ultra-conservatism in his country’s political development. One strand of ultra-conservatism, Salafism, that Saudi interior minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz wanted to elevate to an official Islamic school of thought shortly before his death in 2012, gained, according to Ahmed, currency under the coalition government in the first years of the 21st century formed by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami, a controversial group that opposed the country's independence. Like in Pakistan, of which Bangladesh was part until, 1971, the military as well as political parties maintained opportunistic ties to militants such as Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad that were often as opposed to secularism as they were to Saudi-style monarchy. As a result, Bangladesh, the world’s fourth largest Muslim nation, is at the heart of a struggle between liberalism and ultra-conservatism that questions Saudi Arabia's legacy and is about reforms that go beyond anything envisioned by Prince Mohammed. It is a battle in which free-thinking, journalists, writers and intellectuals have paid a heavy price. In the latest incident earlier this month, prominent scholar, award-winning science fiction author and outspoken critic of religious militants, Muhammed Zafar Iqbal was stabbed and seriously injured in a knife attack in the north-eastern town of Sylhet. Iqbal was the latest victim of more than 30 machete attacks, shootouts, and bombings in Bangladesh in the past three years, including last year's assault on the Holy Artisan Bakery in Dhaka in which 22 hostages were killed. The country's battle was fuelled by a 2010 Bangladesh Supreme Court decision to roll back the Saudi-inspired amendment of the constitution and restore secularism as its basic tenant as well as the execution of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders for war crimes during the 1971 Pakistani-Indian war that gave birth to Bangladesh. In response, ultra-conservatives and militants demanded death for "atheists and apostates" who had demonstrated in favour of the death penalties, stricter anti-blasphemy legislation and a crackdown on alleged un-Islamic cultural practices. To be sure, Saudi Arabia, a country that is itself in transition, is unlikely to be backing the ultra-conservatives and militants. Yet, their struggle and deep-seated polarisation in Bangladesh are offshoots of the kingdom’s past ultra-conservative support and the creation of an environment in which politicians and state organs can opportunistically exploit religious sentiment. Criticism of the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed’s weak response to the violence, if not inaction, coupled with the battle for the soul of Bangladesh serves as evidence that reversing the fallout of four decades of Saudi promotion of ultra-conservatism as an anti-dote to Iranian revolutionary zeal will take time and often be volatile. The same is true for efforts to counter creeping ultra-conservatism in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. In fact, what the struggles in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia suggest is that today's culprits are not Saudi Arabia, even if it bears a responsibility, but politicians and/or national governments. Said Chowdhury: "The failure to bring culprits to justice in many of the recent attacks in Bangladesh has 'been the deliberate goal of the government. It supports their ambition to continue holding on to power by silencing critics and pandering to the religious right'." (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the authors and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Saudi Prince Mohammed's religious moderation unlikely to change Asian realities

The United States government led by Donald Trump has filed an appeal against a Maryland court order that blocked Trump&#39;s revised travel ban on the ground that it discriminated against Muslims.&nbsp;

The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal with the district court in Greenbelt, Maryland, two days after that court and one in Hawaii dealt a new blow to the White House&#39;s travel ban, both ruling that it discriminated against Muslims.

The case now goes to a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia.

Trump has said a travel ban is needed to preserve US national security and keep out extremists.

His first effort, in January, banned travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries and all refugees but was blocked by a court in Washington state on the grounds that it violated the constitution`s prohibition of religious discrimination.

That block was upheld on appeal, and the administration said it would revise the ban to better adhere to the law.&nbsp;

But the new ban has run into the same problems.

It aims to close US borders to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and all refugees for at least 120 days. Iraq was on the original ban but removed in the revision.

The White House said the six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet US security requirements.

While the ban does not mention Muslims, the courts have accepted arguments that Trump`s statements while he was running for president last year that he would open his White House term with a ban on Muslim arrivals effectively defined his approach.

Arguing the case in Hawaii, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said of Trump&#39;s comments: &quot;There is a difference between a president and a candidate.&quot;

&quot;This order doesn&#39;t draw any religious distinction at all,&quot; he added.

(AFP)

The appeal comes two days after courts in Maryland and Hawaii blocked Trump's revised travel ban order

The United States government led by Donald Trump has filed an appeal against a Maryland court order that blocked Trump's revised travel ban on the ground that it discriminated against Muslims. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal with the district court in Greenbelt, Maryland, two days after that court and one in Hawaii dealt a new blow to the White House's travel ban, both ruling that it discriminated against Muslims. The case now goes to a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia. Trump has said a travel ban is needed to preserve US national security and keep out extremists. His first effort, in January, banned travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries and all refugees but was blocked by a court in Washington state on the grounds that it violated the constitution`s prohibition of religious discrimination. That block was upheld on appeal, and the administration said it would revise the ban to better adhere to the law. But the new ban has run into the same problems. It aims to close US borders to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and all refugees for at least 120 days. Iraq was on the original ban but removed in the revision. The White House said the six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet US security requirements. While the ban does not mention Muslims, the courts have accepted arguments that Trump`s statements while he was running for president last year that he would open his White House term with a ban on Muslim arrivals effectively defined his approach. Arguing the case in Hawaii, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said of Trump's comments: "There is a difference between a president and a candidate." "This order doesn't draw any religious distinction at all," he added. (AFP)

Trump administration files appeal against court order blocking revised travel ban

Under pressure to toughen their stance on migrants, German Chancellor Angela Merkel&#39;s conservatives called on Thursday for an effective ban on the burqa, saying the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women should not be worn in public. 
 
In its main resolution for a looming party congress in the city of Karlsruhe that is shaping up as a test of Merkel&#39;s authority, the leadership of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) resisted calls by some members for an &lsquo;Obergrenze&rsquo;, or cap on the number of refugees entering Germany. 
 
But to satisfy the critics, they adopted tough language on a range of immigration-related subjects, from security to integration. 
 
Roughly one million asylum seekers, many from Muslim countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, are expected to arrive in Germany this year, far more than in any other European country. This has hit support for the ruling CDU and pushed down Merkel&#39;s popularity ratings. 
 
Some members of her own party say she must get the number of arrivals down by the time three state elections are held in March or her hopes of running for a fourth term in 2017 would be in danger. 
 
The 18-page resolution, which will be debated by CDU delegates at the congress starting on Monday in the southwestern city of Karlsruhe, says Muslim garments for women that cover the entire body are at odds with German values. 
 
&quot;Anyone who wears them is demonstrating that they are not ready to integrate into our free and open society. Therefore we reject the use of full-body coverings in public,&quot; the resolution reads. 
 
Neighbouring France adopted a &#39;burka ban&#39; in 2011 but Germany has resisted such a step. 
 
The CDU resolution also calls for criminalising expressions of support for &quot;terrorist organisations&quot; over the internet and for limits on the right of migrants who are granted asylum to bring their families to Germany. 
 
It also warns that if the European Union is not able to gain control over its external borders, that the Schengen free-travel zone cannot remain in place in the long-term. 
 
&quot;We want to keep Schengen,&quot; Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told a news conference to present the resolution. &quot;The end of Schengen would have significant consequences. It would cause collateral damage economically, politically and in other areas. Nevertheless, we are saying here that Schengen is in danger,&quot; he said. 
 
(Reuters)

The 18-page resolution says Muslim garments for women that cover the entire body are at odds with German values

Under pressure to toughen their stance on migrants, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives called on Thursday for an effective ban on the burqa, saying the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women should not be worn in public. In its main resolution for a looming party congress in the city of Karlsruhe that is shaping up as a test of Merkel's authority, the leadership of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) resisted calls by some members for an ‘Obergrenze’, or cap on the number of refugees entering Germany. But to satisfy the critics, they adopted tough language on a range of immigration-related subjects, from security to integration. Roughly one million asylum seekers, many from Muslim countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, are expected to arrive in Germany this year, far more than in any other European country. This has hit support for the ruling CDU and pushed down Merkel's popularity ratings. Some members of her own party say she must get the number of arrivals down by the time three state elections are held in March or her hopes of running for a fourth term in 2017 would be in danger. The 18-page resolution, which will be debated by CDU delegates at the congress starting on Monday in the southwestern city of Karlsruhe, says Muslim garments for women that cover the entire body are at odds with German values. "Anyone who wears them is demonstrating that they are not ready to integrate into our free and open society. Therefore we reject the use of full-body coverings in public," the resolution reads. Neighbouring France adopted a 'burka ban' in 2011 but Germany has resisted such a step. The CDU resolution also calls for criminalising expressions of support for "terrorist organisations" over the internet and for limits on the right of migrants who are granted asylum to bring their families to Germany. It also warns that if the European Union is not able to gain control over its external borders, that the Schengen free-travel zone cannot remain in place in the long-term. "We want to keep Schengen," Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told a news conference to present the resolution. "The end of Schengen would have significant consequences. It would cause collateral damage economically, politically and in other areas. Nevertheless, we are saying here that Schengen is in danger," he said. (Reuters)

German Chancellor Merkel calls for ban on burqa