reclaim

Sinner wins Paris Masters to reclaim world No 1 ranking from Alcaraz | Tennis News

Jannik Sinner’s first Paris Masters crown moves the Italian past Carlos Alcaraz and back into the ATP’s top spot.

Italy’s Jannik Sinner powered past Felix Auger-Aliassime 6-4, 7-6(4) to capture his maiden Paris Masters title on Sunday, a triumph that catapulted the 24-year-old back to the summit of the men’s rankings ahead of the ATP Finals.

The second seed knew only victory would suffice to leapfrog rival Carlos Alcaraz atop the standings, and he delivered in style to become just the fourth player in tournament history to lift the trophy without dropping a set.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

For Auger-Aliassime, the stakes were equally high but the outcome crushingly different. The Canadian ninth seed needed the title to secure his spot at the season-ending ATP Finals in Turin, but instead saw his hopes dashed in a high-quality final.

Sinner’s Paris conquest marked his first Masters crown of the year and fifth title of 2025, extending his remarkable indoor hardcourt winning streak to 26 matches.

‘Intense final’

“It’s huge, honestly. It was such an intense final here, and we both knew what’s on the line. Also him, he’s in a very tough and difficult spot, but from my side, I’m extremely happy,” Sinner said in an on-court interview.

“The past couple of months have been amazing. We’ve tried to work on things, trying to improve as a player. Seeing these kind of results makes me incredibly happy.

“Another title this year. It has been an amazing year, no matter what comes now in Turin. I’m extremely happy.”

Sinner made his intentions clear from the opening game, breaking Auger-Aliassime’s serve before consolidating the break as he controlled rallies while the Canadian leaked unforced errors.

Despite the majority of the crowd rallying behind the underdog, Auger-Aliassime struggled to match Sinner’s relentless power and precision.

Jannik Sinner in action.
Sinner in action during the final against Canada’s Felix Auger-Aliassime [Sarah Meyssonnier/Reuters]

Sinner untouchable on serve

Sinner proved untouchable on the serve, mixing deep groundstrokes with drop shots and half-volleys to bamboozle his opponent.

The Italian’s dominance was complete in the opening set, when Auger-Aliassime failed to earn a single break point while Sinner dropped just three points on serve, sealing the set with a flourish by firing a cross-court forehand winner.

The second set offered more resistance, however, as Auger-Aliassime showed his mettle, saving five break points.

But even his resolute defence could not crack Sinner’s serving stranglehold as the set headed to a tiebreak.

Auger-Aliassime held his own in the tiebreak until a crucial error handed Sinner the advantage, and the Italian needed no second invitation to surge into the lead.

Sinner then delivered the knockout blow on match point, forcing Auger-Aliassime wide during the rally before unleashing a searing backhand winner down the line to claim his fifth Masters crown.

Auger-Aliassime is set to play this week in Metz, where he had a first-round bye, in a last attempt to secure the final spot at the ATP Finals the following week.

Jannik Sinner and Felix Auger-Aliassime react.
Sinner shakes hands with Canada’s Felix Auger-Aliassime, right, at the end of their men’s singles final [Julien de Rosa/AFP]

Source link

England vs Canada LIVE SCORE: Women’s Rugby World Cup final latest as Red Roses look to reclaim title against Canadians

England team news

Starting: 1 Hannah Botterman, 2 Amy Cokayne, 3 Maud Muir; 4 Morwenna Talling, 5 Abbie Ward; 6 Zoe Aldcroft (capt.), 7 Sadia Kabeya, 8 Alex Matthews; 9 Natasha ‘Mo’ Hunt, 10 Zoe Harrison; 11 Jess Breach, 12 Tatyana Heard, 13 Meg Jones, 14 Abby Dow; 15 Ellie Kildunne.

Replacements: 16 Lark Atkin-Davies, 17 Kelsey Clifford, 18 Sarah Bern, 19 Rosie Galligan, 20 Maddie Feaunati; 21 Lucy Packer, 22 Holly Aitchison, 23 Helena Rowland.

England vs Canada

Welcome to SunSport’s LIVE coverage of the Women’s Rugby World Cup final.

England take on Canada in front of a sell out 82,000 crowd at Twickenham, which breaks an attendance record for women’s rugby.

The Red Roses are on a remarkable 32-match winning streak and are in their seventh consecutive final.

But they come up against a Canada side that is the second best in the world and have caught the eye so far in this tournament.

Source link

Farron drapes himself in flag as Lib Dems seek to reclaim patriotism

Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron draped himself in an England flag and declared his love for his country at the opening night rally of the party’s conference in Bournemouth.

“We will not have our history, our heritage, and our home stolen by the poison of nationalism,” the MP roared as he called on members to “reclaim patriotism” from the far right.

Farron’s flag also featured a union jack in one corner. And confetti cannons rained glitter over him as the brass bombast of Land of Hope and Glory rang out and a giant union jack appeared on the screen behind him.

The theatrics seemed to work, as a membership sometimes mocked for its mild-mannered approach got to its collective feet and filled the air with whoops of approval and the flutter of hundreds of mini flags.

Farron told a hall full of activists to “stop being so flaming squeamish and English” and reclaim the UK’s flags from groups who seek to “divide and destroy”.

“Be proud of your country, the British flag and the flags of our four nations,” he said. “They are ours. They belong to all of us. Let’s take them back. Let’s wave them with pride.”

“Let us reclaim our flags for those who would reunite and rebuild, not divide and destroy, because we will not yield our identity, our flag, or our country, to the nationalists.

“A Britain that may be broken by the wickedness of hatred, fake news and isolation, but a Britain that I passionately believe is not beyond healing.”

At the end of his speech, the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale held aloft the giant England flag bearing the slogans “Pride of Lancashire” and “Rovers til I Die”, in support of his football team Blackburn Rovers.

The Liberal Democrats are going all out this week to claim that they are the true patriots, in contrast to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who they have dubbed a “plastic patriot”.

They have even created a “plastic patriot” Farage Lego figure, which is included in a welcome pack being handed out to journalists.

For a party that has largely shunned flag-waving displays of national pride, this is a new departure.

But the party’s MPs are eager to take the fight to Reform and insert themselves into the national debate, as St George’s Cross and Union flag are displayed in towns and cities across the UK.

Leader Sir Ed Davey was greeted by a flag-waving crowd of party activists as he led a marching band through Bournemouth Central Gardens, twirling a baton – a deliberately patriotic twist on his trademark stunts.

The band, which had arrived on the ferry from the Isle of Wight, played Sweet Caroline, a favourite among England football fans, as they came to a halt in front of the Bournemouth conference centre.

Elsewhere, a group calling themselves “Bournemouth Patriots” protested outside a hotel in the town being used to house migrants.

The group stood with national flags outside of the Roundhouse Hotel in the centre of the town, and were met by a counter-protest.

The Lib Dem leader told reporters: “The vast majority of people who’ve got decent values, respect for the rule of law, tolerance, who love our country like the Liberal Democrats do.

“They want to see a party that is true to British values but will change our country.”

Source link

Decolonising knowledge: A call to reclaim Islam’s intellectual legacy | Religion

Over the last century, both Muslim and non-Muslim thinkers have centred their reformist discussions on decolonisation. The sheer volume of books, articles, and seminars on this subject has become overwhelming to the point of saturation. Muslims entered this debate seeking to understand how to regain global relevance, if not influence. They struggled to pinpoint exactly where and how the Muslim agenda went off course. The colonisation of Muslim countries became the nearest and most convenient target to criticise and demonise. As a result, Muslim thinkers of the 20th century were deeply absorbed in the process of decolonisation. Analysing the root causes of our decline and disintegration is undoubtedly an essential step towards self-correction and revival. The question, however, is how much progress have we made as an Ummah by endlessly repeating age-old analyses that leave behind only a bitter aftertaste? Where has all this talk of decolonisation actually taken us?

I dare say it has led us to pursue aggressive efforts to further secularise Muslim values and promote misplaced priorities, such as pushing for a nation’s entry into the World Cup, building the tallest skyscraper, hosting music festivals, spending billions to recruit the world’s top football players, and staging Formula One races. As an afterthought, there is also an appreciation for education, often reduced to importing Western universities into the Muslim world. The significant contribution of Ismail al-Faruqi, a prominent Muslim philosopher who championed the concept of the Islamisation of knowledge, defined as the integration of Islamic principles into all fields of learning to realign modern knowledge with a monotheistic worldview, has quietly faded from focus. It has been increasingly overshadowed by an apologetic stance towards liberalism.

In striving to regain global standing, we seem to have replaced meaningful reform with superficial displays of progress.

In Western academia, discussions on decolonisation began with examinations of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s paradox of founding and later expanded to ideas such as Frantz Fanon’s theory of spontaneity, Sukarno’s concept of guided democracy, and Ali Shariati’s paradox of colonisation. With Ismail al-Faruqi’s call for the Islamisation of knowledge, Muslims came to recognise that true self-determination must also involve a revival of Muslim epistemology. This aligns with the Peruvian scholar Anibal Quijano’s argument that decolonisation requires a critical challenge to Eurocentric control over knowledge.

The Eurocentric and Western dominance over global knowledge, particularly in areas where they have little legitimacy to lead, is evident in many examples. Curators who oversee vast collections of Muslim manuscripts often claim the authority to narrate their history according to their own interpretations, which frequently diverge from the perspectives of the original authors and traditional commentators.

As the founder and director of Darul Qasim, an Islamic seminary dedicated to advanced studies in the classical Islamic sciences, I witnessed this here in Illinois in the United States at an exhibition of rare Qur’anic manuscripts, where a non-Muslim woman had been appointed to “tell the stories” of the texts. When a student from Darul Qasim corrected several inaccuracies in her account, her only reply was a dismissive: “I’m in charge here.”

Another example involves a scholar from Darul Qasim who submitted a manuscript on classical Arabic grammar to a prominent Western publisher who refused to publish it, stating: “We cannot accept this work as you have not cited any Western sources.” Such incidents highlight how Western academic gatekeeping continues to reinforce Eurocentric control over knowledge.

Ismail al-Faruqi sought to rescue Muslim knowledge from Western dominance. His vision was to “Islamicise” knowledge by cleansing the sciences of concepts that are fundamentally incompatible with Islam. His theories were grounded in a monotheistic approach that integrated all sciences with the worldview of the Ummah. The concept gained traction and was promoted by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a research organisation founded to advance the Islamisation of knowledge and embed it within academic discourse. While al-Faruqi’s call to reevaluate our system of knowledge was undoubtedly a step in the right direction, it does not fully lead us to the ultimate goal of comprehensive decolonisation.

What is needed is a theory that goes beyond the Islamisation of knowledge. I propose digging deeper into what scholars call the coloniality of knowledge, the persistent dominance of Eurocentric frameworks that continue to shape global intellectual thought, and advancing a theory of the desecularisation of knowledge. This requires realigning knowledge at the level of its epistemology, not merely in terms of politics or economics. Muslim scholars must take on the task of presenting and representing a coherent and effective theory of our epistemology.

In summary, Islamic epistemology recognises three primary sources of knowledge: that which comes through the five senses, that which is derived from human intellect, and that which is conveyed through authentic and true reports, such as revelation to a Prophet. These three encompass every source of knowledge known to humankind, with intuition and dreams also understood as products of the intellect.

Historically, Muslims played a leading role in mastering these sources of knowledge and disseminating them across the world. In Islam, knowledge is never separated from Allah, who is the original source of all knowledge. Unlike Western intellectual traditions that sought to separate knowledge from God in pursuit of modernity and prosperity, Islam affirms that true creativity flows from Allah, and that inventions and innovations arise from honouring Allah’s knowledge of the world.

Unfortunately, there is today a deep tension in the Muslim world over how to distinguish between Islamic and secular knowledge. Many seem to believe that Muslims must undergo a Western-inspired renaissance to reclaim past glory, doing so without regard for the afterlife, or akhirah. The problem is that Muslims do believe in the akhirah, and this has created a self-imposed and false dichotomy, born of misunderstanding Islamic principles, that suggests Muslims must compete with the West while simultaneously upholding the rules of salvation. This perceived conflict forces an artificial wedge between what is considered Islamic and what is considered secular.

I believe this dichotomy is false, and anyone familiar with Islamic law, or fiqh, would recognise that. Islamic law governs how Muslims act, react, and interact with the mundane world in ways that have direct implications for their afterlife. Human actions in this world have consequences in the next. While this is not a treatise on Islamic law, this observation alone should address the doubts of sceptics. Muslims are generous not only because it helps those in need, but because they believe such acts bring immense reward in the akhirah. Charity, therefore, is not merely a humanitarian value, but a profoundly religious one. Belief in the akhirah desecularises even the simplest acts of kindness, reaffirming how Islamic thought integrates the material and spiritual.

I propose that Islamic epistemology views all knowledge not as secular or sacred, but as either beneficial (nafi’) or more beneficial (anfa’). Any knowledge that benefits an individual, human or non-human, in this world is considered beneficial. The Quran itself provides examples of such knowledge: Allah taught Nuh (Noah) the craft of building an ark from wooden planks that withstood a massive storm, and taught Dawud (David) the skill of forging armour from iron. In both cases, the knowledge is described as coming directly from Allah, and therefore, cannot be considered secular. Building bridges, highways, hospitals, and schools also falls into this category of beneficial (nafi’) knowledge, as these works serve human welfare in this life.

Knowledge that benefits human beings in the akhirah is anfa’, or more beneficial. This includes knowledge of reciting the Quran, understanding ritual worship, and knowing how to serve Allah. Establishing religious schools (madrassas), mosques, and zakat foundations, for instance, belongs to this category of anfa’ knowledge.

Muslims do not need to create a false dichotomy in knowledge, for tawheed, the oneness of Allah, also encompasses the unity of knowledge. With this understanding, there is no need to desecularise knowledge; rather, we must appropriate it correctly according to its utility in this world and the next. The key lies in affirming the existence of the other world. I dare say that, in an age where belief in parallel universes is entertained, life beyond this world is not as far-fetched as secularists might have us believe.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Source link

House votes to reclaim $9.4B and cut NPR, PBS spending

June 12 (UPI) — The House of Representatives narrowly approved axing $8.3 billion in funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development and another $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Thursday.

The House voted 214-212 to approve the rescissions package of bills and send them to the Senate, which could pass the measures with a simple majority.

The measures were passed after two House Republicans switched their votes after initially opposing their passage.

Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Nick LaLota of New York opposed the rescission bills but voted for the measure with strong encouragement from House GOP leadership.

Four other GOP House members, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mark Amodei of Nevada, Mike Turner of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania voted with 208 House Democrats to oppose the rescission package.

Four Democrats and two Republican House members did not vote on the rescission package.

The formerly Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency recommended the rescissions after reviewing USAID, PBS and NPR spending.

“I want to thank DOGE for their heroic and patriotic efforts,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters afterward.

“What we’re trying to do is ensure that every dollar spent by the federal government is used efficiently and effectively,” Johnson said.

Johnson conferred with LaLota and Bacon on the House floor while the vote was still open, but passage looked doubtful until they changed their votes.

LaLota said the conversation between him and Johnson involved state and local tax cuts in New York that are part of the “one big beautiful bill” that Trump wants passed to fund the federal government for the 2026 fiscal year.

“I had some conversations with the speaker that raised my level of confidence that will put this and future issues in the right trajectory,” LaLota told reporters afterward.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., also joined Johnson and LaLota for the floor conversation and then voted in favor of the measure.

Bacon had announced on Monday that he wouldn’t support the rescission package “if it guts an AIDS relief program,” namely the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which was started by former President George W. Bush.

President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social in April that “Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS,” further calling the stations “radical-left monsters.”

Johnson has called the request an opportunity to cancel “wasteful spending” that would “ensure greater accountability in government going forward.”

“There is no reason for any media organization to be singled out to receive federal funds, especially those who appear to have so little regard for the truth,” Johnson previously said.

As for USAID, Johnson said DOGE “went after USAID first for their review, their audits,” because it allegedly “opposed the loudest of this accountability measure,” which “put the scrutiny targets on their own backs.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., accused House Republicans of “debating legislation that targets Elmo and Big Bird and Daniel Tiger and Sesame Street” instead of legislation that could help the nation and its economy during floor debate on Thursday.

Congress has the ability to cancel funds that the federal government had previously appropriated but hasn’t spent under the rescissions process.

The president can temporarily defer or withhold such funds, but only with the approval of Congress.

Republicans currently hold a seven-seat majority in the House. In the case of the Senate, where there are 53 Republicans among its 100 seats, rescission bills only require a simple majority.

Source link