CHICAGO: To Eman Abdelhadi, getting an abortion was the most sensible thing to do. She was six weeks pregnant and a graduate student who wasn’t financially ready to have a child. She felt no shame or guilt going through with it.
“I had no qualms about it. I grew up in an environment and a religious tradition that sees my life as the most important thing,” said Abdelhadi, a professor at the University of Chicago who was raised in a Muslim household. “It felt very clear to me. There was never anything like, ‘You did something unethical.‘”
Abdelhadi, whose mother was a gynecologist in Egypt, grew up with the idea that abortion was a “nonsensical thing to legislate” and that legalizing it was necessary to prevent people from seeking other, potentially dangerous means of terminating pregnancies.
Islamic law is flexible, Abdelhadi said, and when it comes to making a decision about abortion, “people will consult with their families, their religious leaders, and then they’ll ultimately make a decision for themselves.”
As the US Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Roe vs. Wade, Muslim Americans are gearing up for what the landmark reversal could mean for their communities.
“There’s been a sort of confused silence as (Muslim) folks try to figure out what they believe about this, or what Islam tells them about this,” said Abdelhadi, now a sociologist who studies Muslims in America. “I think what happens in a Christian-dominated space is that sometimes, even among Muslims, we don’t know what we believe.”
The recent passage of anti-abortion legislation in Texas and other red states has led many to make comparisons to the Taliban’s iron-fisted control of women in Muslim-majority Afghanistan. Such comparisons are inaccurate and perpetuate Islamophobia, experts say, adding that this rationale minimizes the role of Christianity and other US systems that led to Texas’ six-week abortion ban.
The American Muslim Bar Association and HEART Women and Girls in April released an 11-page statement, dubbed “The Islamic Principle of Rahma: A Call for Reproductive Justice,” declaring that as a religious minority, Muslim Americans “are uniquely positioned to condemn abortion bans and their attack on every person’s constitutional right to religious liberty.”
“Muslims are not a monolith and we don’t have a systemized and global authority that mirrors the papal system in Catholicism. We also don’t hold a uniform view on when life begins,” the statement read.
Muslims have a rich understanding of conception, gestation, notions of life — and “abortion is part of that,” said Zahra Ayubi, a professor of religion at Dartmouth College and scholar of gender in pre-modern and modern Islamic ethics.
While Muslims have performed abortions since pre-modern times, Ayubi said contemporary concepts of when life begins are derived from Islamic legal tradition, pertaining to the inheritance rights of an unborn child or criminal laws addressing the fine a perpetrator would face for harming a pregnant person.
In fact, Ayubi said, restrictive abortion laws in states such as Texas “take away from Muslim rights to abortion in their tradition and their religion.”
Abed Awad, a Rutgers adjunct law professor and national expert in Shariah, agrees.
If states outlaw abortion, Muslim Americans have standing to sue against abortion bans that interfere with their religious exercise, said Awad, adding that the issue of when life begins is a theological question.
The Texas law, currently one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, constitutes a religious violation of the First Amendment, said Awad, in that it subjects this “moral position of the Christian right and the anti-abortion movement” to other communities who don’t subscribe to these beliefs.
Muslims finding their place in America’s abortion debate
https://arab.news/z8fhw
Muslims finding their place in America’s abortion debate
- The recent passage of anti-abortion legislation in Texas and other red states has led many to make comparisons to the Taliban’s iron-fisted control of women in Muslim-majority Afghanistan
North Korean leader Kim met Russian minister Alexander Kozlov, KCNA reports
SEOUL: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met with Russia’s natural resources minister Alexander Kozlov on Monday, state media KCNA reported on Tuesday.
Kim said cooperation in trade, science and technology should expand for the two countries’ development and prosperity, the report said.
What does Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use longer-range US weapons mean?
- The ballistic missiles, developed by US aerospace and defense company Lockheed Martin, have nearly double the striking distance — up to 300 kilometers (190 miles) — of most of the weapons in Ukraine’s possession
- Biden authorized Ukraine to use the ATACMS to strike deeper inside Russia, according to a US official and three other people familiar with the matter
KYIV, Ukraine: The US will allow Ukraine to use American-supplied longer-range weapons to conduct strikes deeper inside Russian territory, a long-sought request by Kyiv.
It isn’t yet clear if there are limits on Ukraine’s use of the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, as there have been on other US missile systems. Their deployment could — at least initially — be limited to Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops seized territory earlier this year.
Since the first year of the war, Ukrainian leaders have lobbied Western allies to allow them to use advanced weapons to strike key targets inside Russia — which they hope would erode Moscow’s capabilities before its troops reach the front line and could make it more difficult for the Russian forces to strike Ukrainian territory. It could also serve as a deterrent force in the event of future ceasefire negotiations.
The US has long opposed the move, with President Joe Biden determined to avoid any escalation that he felt could draw the US and other NATO members into direct conflict with nuclear-armed Russia. The Kremlin warned on Monday that the decision adds “fuel to the fire.”
The decision comes in the waning days of Biden’s presidency, before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office. Trump has said he would bring about a swift end to the war, which many fear could force unpalatable concessions from Kyiv.
What are ATACMS?
The ballistic missiles, developed by US aerospace and defense company Lockheed Martin, have nearly double the striking distance — up to 300 kilometers (190 miles) — of most of the weapons in Ukraine’s possession. They carry a larger payload and have more precise targeting for pinpoint attacks on air fields, ammunition stores and strategic infrastructure.
The United States has supplied Ukraine with dozens of ATACMS (pronounced attack-ems) and they have been used to destroy military targets in Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine such as Crimea — but not on Russian soil.
What is Biden allowing Ukraine to do?
Biden authorized Ukraine to use the ATACMS to strike deeper inside Russia, according to a US official and three other people familiar with the matter.
The longer-range missiles are likely to be used in response to North Korea’s decision to send troops to support Kremlin forces, according to one of the people familiar with the development. Pyongyang’s troops are apparently being deployed to help the Russian army drive Ukrainian forces out of Russia’s Kursk border region, where they launched an incursion in August.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the US decision publicly.
It was the second time that Washington has expanded Ukraine’s authority to use its US-provided weapons systems inside Russian territory.
In May, after Russia’s offensive into the Kharkiv region threatened to stretch Ukrainian forces thin, Biden permitted the use of HIMARS systems — with a range of 80 kilometers (50 miles) — to quell that advance. That decision helped Ukrainian soldiers stabilize the fight for a time by forcing Russian forces to pull back military assets.
Why does Ukraine need longer-range weapons?
Ukraine has been asking its Western allies for longer-range weapons in order to alter the balance of power in a war where Russia is better resourced, and strike with precision air bases, supply depots and communication centers hundreds of kilometers (miles) over the border.
It hopes the weapons would help blunt Russia’s air power and weaken the supply lines it needs to launch daily strikes against Ukraine and to sustain its military ground offensive into Ukraine.
If used in Kursk, the weapons would likely require Russian forces preparing for counterattacks to push back valuable equipment and manpower and complicate battle plans.
In lieu of Western weapons, Ukraine has been regularly striking Russia with domestically produced weapons, with some capable of traveling up to 1,000 kilometers (620 miles), but still lacks sufficient quantities to do serious long-term harm.
Will the decision change the course of the war?
Ukrainian leaders are being cautious about the announcement — and senior US defense and military leaders have persistently argued that it won’t be a gamechanger. They also have noted that Russia has moved many key assets out of range.
“I don’t believe one capability is going to be decisive and I stand by that comment,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has said, noting that the Ukrainians have other means to strike long-range targets.
Analysts have also suggested the effect could be limited.
“Today, many in the media are talking about the fact that we have received permission to take appropriate actions. But blows are not inflicted with words. Such things are not announced. The rockets will speak for themselves,” said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of the announcement.
The effect of the decision depends on the rules set for the weapons’ use.
If strikes are allowed across all of Russia, they could significantly complicate Moscow’s ability to respond to battlefield demands.
If strikes are limited to the Kursk region, Russia could relocate its command centers and air units to nearby regions, blunting the effect of those logistical challenges. That would also mean many of the valuable targets Ukrainian officials have expressed desire to hit may still be beyond reach.
Either way, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Charlie Dietz has noted the ATACMS wouldn’t be the answer to the main threat Ukraine faces from Russian-fired glide bombs, which are being fired from more than 300 kilometers (180 miles) away, beyond the ATACMS’ reach.
In addition, the overall supply of ATACMS is limited, so US officials in the past have questioned whether they could give Ukraine enough to make a difference — though some proponents say that even a few strikes deeper inside Russia would force its military to change deployments and expend more of its resources.
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, said the US decision would not alter the course of the war.
“To really impose costs on Russia, Ukraine would need large stockpiles of ATACMS, which it doesn’t have and won’t receive because the United States’ own supplies are limited,” she said. “Moreover, the biggest obstacle Ukraine faces is a lack of trained and ready personnel, a challenge that neither the United States nor its European allies can solve and that all the weapons in the world won’t overcome.”
What are the key remaining questions?
In addition to it being unclear what, if any, restrictions the US will impose on the weapons’ use, it’s also not known how many the US will give to Ukraine.
While the US has provided ATACMS to Ukraine in various military aid packages, the Defense Department will not disclose how many have been sent or exactly how many of those missiles the Pentagon has. Estimates suggest the US has a number that is in the low thousands.
The recent American election raises questions over how long this policy will be in place. Trump has repeatedly criticized the Biden administration’s spending to support Ukraine — and could reverse moves like this one.
On the other hand, it’s also not clear whether other allies might step up: The decision may encourage Britain and France to allow Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles, also known as SCALP missiles, with a range of 250 kilometers (155 miles).
Trump appears to be planning to attend SpaceX ‘Starship’ launch scheduled for Tuesday in Texas
- Trump frequently regaled audiences on the campaign trail with a dramatic account of the last Starship test
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida: President-elect Donald Trump appears to be planning to attend a SpaceX “Starship” rocket launch on Tuesday, in the latest indication of founder Elon Musk ‘s influence in the Republican’s orbit.
The Federal Aviation Administration has issued temporary flight restrictions over Brownsville and Boca Chica, Texas area for a VIP visit that coincides with the SpaceX launch window for a test of its massive Starship rocket from its launch facility on the Gulf of Mexico. The flight restrictions put in place over Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida when he is there will be lifted briefly while the Texas security measures are in place.
Trump’s visit comes as billionaire Musk has been a near-constant presence at Trump’s side as he builds out his administration, attending meetings at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, accompanying him to meetings with Capitol Hill Republicans in Washington last week and to a UFC fight in New York on Saturday.
Trump frequently regaled audiences on the campaign trail with a dramatic account of the last Starship test, that included the capture of the booster at its launchpad by a pair of mechanical arms.
Tuesday’s 30-minute launch window opens at 4 p.m. central time, according to the company, with the company again looking to test the landing capture system of the booster in Texas, while the upper stage continues to a splashdown in the Indian Ocean.
Musk pumped an estimated $200 million through his political action committee to help elect Trump and has been named, along with former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, to lead an advisory committee tasked by Trump to dramatically cut governmental costs and reshape how Washington operates, which has sparked ethics concerns over Musk’s many interests before the federal government.
The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the president-elect’s plans.
Where’s Joe? G20 leaders have group photo without Biden
- Biden had earlier urged the G20 leaders to support Ukraine’s “sovereignty” in the face of Russia’s 2022 invasion.
RIO DE JANEIRO: Joe Biden headed for a photo with fellow G20 leaders in Rio de Janeiro at his final summit as US president on Monday, only to find they had already taken the picture without him.
Frustrated US officials blamed “logistical issues” for the blunder which meant that Biden missed out on the shot, along with the Canadian and Italian prime ministers.
It came during a South American tour during which Biden’s counterparts have been looking past the outgoing US president in political terms and toward his successor Donald Trump.
Biden’s swan song on the world stage has seen the 81-year-old try to shore up his legacy before Trump potentially takes a wrecking ball to it with his isolationist “America First” foreign policy.
World leaders including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron walked down a red carpeted ramp at Rio’s stunning bayside museum of modern art to the group photo set-up.
They took to a stage, chatted and joked as they gathered to pose against the backdrop of the Brazilian city’s iconic Sugarloaf Mountain. The snap was over in a second.
Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau then came in from another direction, after a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the summit, but it was too late and the other leaders had already dispersed.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also missed the picture. She, Biden and Trudeau formed a separate huddle.
“Due to logistical issues, they took the photo early before all the leaders had arrived. So a number of the leaders weren’t actually there,” a US official said on condition of anonymity.
US officials denied that Biden missed the photo — officially for Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s launch of an alliance to curb world hunger — to avoid appearing alongside Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Biden had earlier urged the G20 leaders to support Ukraine’s “sovereignty” in the face of Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was conspicuously absent from the Rio summit. His arrest is sought by the International Criminal Court over the Ukraine war.
Moscow warns the US over allowing Ukraine to hit Russian soil with longer-range weapons
KYIV, Ukraine: The Kremlin warned Monday that President Joe Biden’s decision to let Ukraine strike targets inside Russia with US-supplied longer-range missiles adds “fuel to the fire” of the war and would escalate international tensions even higher.
Biden’s shift in policy added an uncertain, new factor to the conflict on the eve of the 1,000-day milestone since Russia began its full-scale invasion in 2022.
It also came as a Russian ballistic missile with cluster munitions struck a residential area of Sumy in northern Ukraine, killing 11 people and injuring 84 others. Another missile barrage sparked apartment fires in the southern port of Odesa, killing at least 10 people and injuring 43, Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said.
Washington is easing limits on what Ukraine can strike with its American-made Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMs, US officials told The Associated Press on Sunday, after months of ruling out such a move over fears of escalating the conflict and bringing about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
The Kremlin was swift in its condemnation.
“It is obvious that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to take steps and they have been talking about this, to continue adding fuel to the fire and provoking further escalation of tensions around this conflict,” said spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
The scope of the new firing guidelines isn’t clear. But the change came after the US, South Korea and NATO said North Korean troops are in Russia and apparently are being deployed to help Moscow drive Ukrainian troops from Russia’s Kursk border region.
Biden’s decision almost entirely was triggered by North Korea’s entry into the fight, according to a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, and was made just before he left for the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru.
Russia also is slowly pushing Ukraine’s outnumbered army backward in the eastern Donetsk region. It has also conducted a devastating aerial campaign against civilian areas in Ukraine.
Peskov referred journalists to a statement from President Vladimir Putin in September in which he said allowing Ukraine to target Russia would significantly raise the stakes.
It would change “the very nature of the conflict dramatically,” Putin said at the time. “This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia.”
Peskov claimed that Western countries supplying longer-range weapons also provide targeting services to Kyiv. “This fundamentally changes the modality of their involvement in the conflict,” he said.
Putin warned in June that Moscow could provide longer-range weapons to others to strike Western targets if NATO allowed Ukraine to use its allies’ arms to attack Russian territory. After signing a treaty with North Korea, Putin issued an explicit threat to provide weapons to Pyongyang, noting Moscow could mirror Western arguments that it’s up to Ukraine to decide how to use them.
“The Westerners supply weapons to Ukraine and say: ‘We do not control anything here anymore and it does not matter how they are used.’” Putin had said. “Well, we can also say: ‘We supplied something to someone — and then we do not control anything.’ And let them think about it.”
Putin had also reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to use nuclear weapons if it sees a threat to its sovereignty.
Biden’s move will “mean the direct involvement of the United States and its satellites in military action against Russia, as well as a radical change in the essence and nature of the conflict,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.
President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office Jan. 20, has raised uncertainty about whether his administration would continue military support to Ukraine. He has also vowed to end the war quickly.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave a muted response Sunday to the approval that he and his government have been requesting for over a year, adding, “The missiles will speak for themselves.”
Consequences of the new policy are uncertain. ATACMS, which have a range of about 300 kilometers (190 miles), can reach far behind the about 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front line in Ukraine, but they have relatively short range compared with other types of ballistic and cruise missiles.
The policy change came “too late to have a major strategic effect,” said Patrick Bury, a senior associate professor in security at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom.
“The ultimate kind of impact it will have is to probably slow down the tempo of the Russian offensives which are now happening,” he said, adding that Ukraine could strike targets in Kursk or logistics hubs or command headquarters.
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, agreed the US move would not alter the war’s course, noting Ukraine “would need large stockpiles of ATACMS, which it doesn’t have and won’t receive because the United States’ own supplies are limited.”
On a political level, the move “is a boost to the Ukrainians and it gives them a window of opportunity to try and show that they are still viable and worth supporting” as Trump prepares to take office, said Matthew Savill, director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
The cue for the policy change was the arrival in Russia of North Korean troops, according to Glib Voloskyi, an analyst at the CBA Initiatives Center, a Kyiv-based think tank.
“This is a signal the Biden administration is sending to North Korea and Russia, indicating that the decision to involve North Korean units has crossed a red line,” he said.
Russian lawmakers and state media bashed the West for what they called an escalatory step, threatening a harsh response.
“Biden, apparently, decided to end his presidential term and go down in history as ‘Bloody Joe,’” lawmaker Leonid Slutsky told Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of parliament, called it “a very big step toward the start of World War III” and an attempt to “reduce the degree of freedom for Trump.”
Russian newspapers offered similar predictions of doom. “The madmen who are drawing NATO into a direct conflict with our country may soon be in great pain,” Rossiyskaya Gazeta said.
Some NATO allies welcomed the move.
President Andrzej Duda of Poland, which borders Ukraine, praised the decision as a “very important, maybe even a breakthrough moment” in the war.
“In the recent days, we have seen the decisive intensification of Russian attacks on Ukraine, above all, those missile attacks where civilian objects are attacked, where people are killed, ordinary Ukrainians,” Duda said.
Easing restrictions on Ukraine was “a good thing,” said Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna of Russian neighbor Estonia.
“We have been saying that from the beginning — that no restrictions must be put on the military support,” he told senior European Union diplomats in Brussels. “And we need to understand that situation is more serious (than) it was even maybe like a couple of months ago.”
But Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, known for his pro-Russian views, described Biden’s decision as “an unprecedented escalation” that would prolong the war.
