Man jailed in China for teaching Quran online

Several videos have been circulating across social media platforms, claiming that football superstar Cristiano Ronaldo is shown reading the Quran in a mosque. Several posts have gone further to claim that Ronaldo and his wife have converted to Islam. The videos have attracted millions of views and sparked widespread speculation. 

Is Ronaldo Reciting the Quran?

One such video shows a man reading from the Quran, with captions like "Cristiano Ronaldo Reciting Quran." Several posts, especially on TikTok and Facebook, claim that Ronaldo has not only read the Quran but has also embraced Islam along with his wife, Georgina Rodríguez. One of these TikTok posts amassed 1.7 million likes and over 58,000 shares, adding to the viral momentum of this claim.

Ronaldo Lookalike from Iraq

Contrary to these claims, the man in the video is not Cristiano Ronaldo. The individual is Bewar Abdullah, a well-known Ronaldo lookalike originally from Iraq, who now resides in Birmingham, U.K. Abdullah has gained fame for his striking resemblance to Ronaldo and regularly posts content online imitating the footballer.

The Reality

The viral video was initially posted by Bewar Abdullah on his TikTok account (@bewarabdullah) on July 20, 2021, with the caption "Eat Mubarek🕌 (sic)." Abdullah has a large following of 1.7 million people.

Abdullah is frequently mistaken for Ronaldo due to his resemblance, and his name appears at the end of the viral video, confirming his identity.

Abdullah’s online popularity stems from his likeness to Ronaldo, and he regularly receives invitations to events and appearances due to this.

Apart from the video, there are also widespread claims that Ronaldo and his wife have converted to Islam. However, there is no credible evidence to support this. These rumors appear to have emerged from the same viral content surrounding Ronaldo’s lookalike, without any basis in fact.

Why the Confusion?

The confusion arises from Abdullah’s close resemblance to Ronaldo and the viral nature of social media posts that often mislead viewers. The presence of Ronaldo-related hashtags and captions like "#Ronaldo #CristianoRonaldo #CR7 #SaudiArabia" further fueled the speculation, making it seem more believable to the football star's global fanbase.

Bengaluru: In a chilling case of moral policing gone violent, three men have been arrested for the brutal murder of a 21-year-old college student at a farmhouse near Bengaluru. The accused, identified as Chandru, Nagesh, and Murali from Honnapura, allegedly killed the student, Punith, following an altercation.

Punith, a BCom student at a private college, had gone to the Chikkenahalli Farmhouse on October 26 with seven classmates, including two women, for a casual outing. According to police reports, the group was enjoying their time when the accused, all locals, became aware of the gathering.

At around 10:30 pm, the three men stormed the farmhouse and began recording videos of Punith’s female classmates, who were in the swimming pool. They verbally abused the students, questioning their presence and demanding to know who had permitted them to use the farmhouse.

When Punith protested against their actions, the situation escalated violently. He was viciously attacked with a wooden log, sustaining severe head injuries. Punith was rushed to a nearby hospital but succumbed to his injuries three days later. Another student, Likith, was also assaulted but suffered only minor injuries.

The Ramanagara Rural police have registered a case of murder against the suspects, who are now in custody. Further investigations are ongoing.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.