|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 18, 2009 12:43:05 GMT
Luckily, this one is a bit funnier. A comic novel that was to be launched at the new Dubai book fair has unfortunately been banned in Dubai. This is because the book contains a minor character who is a gay sheikh with an English boyfriend. Whether the offence was caused by the sheikh being gay or his preference for European men is not revealed. Sadly for the book fair's organisors, it seems that several star authors from the decadent West take freedom of speech quite seriously and the guest list is shrinking by the second. www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/18/atwood-dubai-bedell-banBest wishes James
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 18, 2009 17:10:49 GMT
Geraldine Bedell (the author) is saying that:
"Gulf Arabs are far more tolerant and accepting, diverse and argumentative than we in Britain (and their protectors in Ministries of Information) are inclined to give them credit for."
Anyone know whether that is in fact the case?.
For anyone that doesn't know there was a similar clash of values last year when a British couple decided to have sex on a beach in Dubai at night time and ended up being arrested and jailed for 'public indecency'. I have to say I secretly approved of the judgement, but then I am a crochety old conservative stuck in the body of a twenty something.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 20, 2009 14:03:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 20, 2009 14:54:00 GMT
Missed this story about the British woman being jailed for alleged adultery. tinyurl.com/982rnrDubai is going to be off my holiday list for a while I'm afraid, not because I'm looking to commit adultery I hasten to add, but because I care about stuff like human rights and other outdated concepts like that. I suspect the forum on censorship will be heavily censored.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 20, 2009 18:20:21 GMT
In case anyone gets the impression the Middle East are against human rights and the West are for human rights, the millions that starve and die each year as a result of our ecomomic policies should be remembered; as Ken Livingston noted "every year the international financial system kills more people than World War II". Why do their human rights not figure? In an Islamic system of governance (which, following the age of colonialism, does not presently exist), the state is responsible for each person's life, sustenance, shelter and clothing, so basic human rights do exist. If you're point is that 'alleged adultery' should not be criminalised, I agree with you: the crime of accusation of unchastity/false witness is worse in Islam than fornication. But surely *open* adultery (which by Islam's standard is the witness of at least four upright people) should be unacceptable and a criminal offence?
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 20, 2009 23:08:58 GMT
I notice again your impressive abilty to beg the question. Yes, capitalism tends not to be charitable, however much it also tends to improve living conditions, in general.
However, please detail which human rights the "Middle East" is for, in practise. And please drop the pretense that all and any fault in present day's Muslim Societies (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc.) are 100 % due to "colonialism". If anyone should trust you, stop blaming things on others, it is really time to find another scapegoat or drop the notion.
Writing as if no Muslim country today is able to make real Muslim laws, is rather revealing, sorry to say.
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Feb 21, 2009 18:11:42 GMT
I'm interested as to whether any Christians (as opposed to wishy-washy fence-sitters such as myself) agree with Zameel's assumption that "open" adultery shoud be a criminal offence. I thought that attitude went out in the 18th or 19th century. Interesting too that only upright witnesses count. Presumably horizontal ones would have been up to no good themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 21, 2009 19:07:37 GMT
No, I am against Sharia laws. One reason why I am Christian is that it is the rare thing - a religion without religious/political laws (we are not ancient Israel). Though of course there are New Testament principles one could (and should) make laws about, like the sanctity of life. "Open" adultery is however not one of those, as in "Let those without sin throw the first stone". And let's not forget how a Biblical view (mixed with a Roman) influenced the whole western (Medieval) tradition of universal laws as analysed in e.g. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition by Harold J. Berman - www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition/dp/0674517768/.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 21, 2009 22:45:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 21, 2009 23:01:19 GMT
No, I am against Sharia laws There is no such thing as "Sharia Law", a journalistic concept which equates the Sharia to something like English Law. The Sharia is both broader than English Law (as it includes rituals and personal matters) and is open to interpretation and debate. It is better understood as a dynamic legal tradition based on principles and values found in Muslim scripture (very little of the Qur'an and Sunna make up ahkam, or actual laws and yet they are the foundations of the Shariah). See: Shariah, Law and Islam: Legalism Vs. Value-Orientation by Dr Mohammad Omar Farooq (available at: www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/shariah_value.doc)Shariah, supported by most Muslims, provides them with a value judgement which shapes their views on how a society should operate. By promoting, as you do, universal laws and supporting your government based on some principles which are based on your Christian heritage and discrediting it for others, you're doing the same thing. Religion provides morality and values, values shape legal systems, so religion ultimately must have something to say in state affairs even if it doesn't fully infiltrate it. In most of Muslim history the religious authorities were separate from the ruling authorities but they indirectly influenced them, and as the ulema were popular amongst the masses they were prized allies of the government. Hence, you'll find most of the Umayyads (with the possible exception of Umar II and a few others) were irreligious but attempted to maintain close ties with the religious leaders (which falsifies the myth of no separation between church and state in Islam). Hence, I see no problem with religion (whether it be in the mode of Shariah or any other) operating in an advisory capacity; it would be foolish for it not to. I also don't see a problem in voicing one's opinion that adultery is not conducive to social cohesion and should in some way be discouraged or deterred. However, since we live under secular principles and values, it would be difficult to make such suggestions as the very basis of religious ideals (to serve God as moral and spiritual agents) is denied. Let those without sin throw the first stone If you are genuine in your respect for Jesus and intend truly to follow his teachings (principles), then you should be aware that the passage Jn 7:53-8:11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts and was a later forgery. Following the Church-Synagogue split after the First Jewish Revolt in 70 AD, further exacerbated by the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the Jewish expulsion from Jerusalem in 135 AD (until they were allowed to return by the caliph Umar I in 638), Christians took a pro-Roman anti-Jewish stance, which explains the adversus Judaeus literature appearing at this time (and the eventual conversion of the Roman empire). This partly involved painting Jesus as anti-Pharisaic (although he was probably closest to the Pharisaic tradition amongst the various Jewish groups) and opposed to the Jewish 'cult' (which the Romans considered threatening and superstitious), hence why such fabrications should appear at this time. The reality therefore is that Jews, Jesus (and the early Jesus followers) and Muslims follow an authentic monotheistic tradition, which Christians have polluted with Greco-Roman pagan beliefs; it should therefore be accepted Christians do not follow Jesus. In Islam only 'open' sins are punishable as personal sins are left between the person and God (e.g. missing formal prayers); open sins like theft, 'public' adultery and murder impinge on society's stability and integrity and are thus contained within hudud ordinances (which are themselves open to human interpretation and judgement).
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 22, 2009 0:23:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by travis on Feb 22, 2009 19:19:15 GMT
Oh please, haven’t we gone over this nonsense? On what basis does such a ridiculous accusation stand? The affirmation of the Trinity? The belief in the atonement on the cross? You never provided any evidence of the early followers of Jesus not believing these things, and only appealed to conspiracy theories. I’m disappointed that after debating you for nine pages and two weeks you still parrot this debunked tripe as if our conversation never happened.
As for Muslims following Jesus, they deny him and his followers of their own history, they deny him of his suffering and sacrifice on the cross, and instead they reinvent a proxy first century Muhammad and only call this Jesus. And are we really to believe that Jesus would approve Jihad, the beheading of apostates and the active persecution of his true followers to this very day? Would he approve of the anti Semitism displayed in the Quran and many Muslim communities? I see no reason to believe Muhammad knew anything about what was actually in the New Testament or really much of anything about Jesus, an ignorance betrayed by Muslims like you even today.
Muhammad can’t even get basic facts about Jesus’ life straight as evidenced by his denial of the crucifixion in Surah 4.157 (A claim which, in my view, torpedoes his credibility as a prophet, if someone writing today said that Christopher Columbus never discovered the Americas, or that Thomas Jefferson never wrote the Declaration of Independence would you take them seriously?). But also his failure to accurately portray the Trinity, confusing the persons as the father, the son and Mary, the mother in Surah 5:116. Not to mention the Quran’s obvious plagiarism of apocryphal Christian texts that were being circulated in Arabia, it’s pretty funny to see Muslims try and claim these as historical events though. There are other egregious mistakes made by Muhammad about Christianity and Judaism but I think you get the point. Remind me again how Muslims have any credibility on claiming to follow Jesus of Nazareth?
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 22, 2009 21:47:17 GMT
No, I am against Sharia laws There is no such thing as "Sharia Law", a journalistic concept which equates the Sharia to something like English Law. The Sharia is both broader than English Law (as it includes rituals and personal matters) and is open to interpretation and debate. It is better understood as a dynamic legal tradition based on principles and values found in Muslim scripture (very little of the Qur'an and Sunna make up ahkam, or actual laws and yet they are the foundations of the Shariah). It is a rare thing to be scared in a debate, however I must again admit I am when I am debating you. When I mentioned Sharia I had all and none of these things in mind, my point was simply the kind of laws being implemented by muslims like Hamas, in Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. (practise is a rather clear way of speaking.) If these are to be "understood as a dynamic legal tradition based on principles and values found in Muslim scripture", I have - if at all possible - less respect for Muslim scripture than ever. Though I really respect your honesty in defending Sharia. Too many muslims I meet try to hide the reality and insist that it is not their goal to implement it in my country. Let those without sin throw the first stone If you are genuine in your respect for Jesus and intend truly to follow his teachings (principles), then you should be aware that the passage Jn 7:53-8:11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts and was a later forgery. Please... All Bible translations in my country have mentioned this for generations, it is neither news nor important. My point was simply the point, which more than most shows the spirit of Jesus -in short, let those without sin throw the first stone. Anyhow, it is also possible to argue for this being a genuine Jesus-tradition, even if that is not needed for my point.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 23, 2009 10:00:57 GMT
I'm interested as to whether any Christians (as opposed to wishy-washy fence-sitters such as myself) agree with Zameel's assumption that "open" adultery shoud be a criminal offence. I thought that attitude went out in the 18th or 19th century. Interesting too that only upright witnesses count. Presumably horizontal ones would have been up to no good themselves. If we had criminal offences for public adultery in the UK then half the establishment would be in jail; including (off the top of my head) Boris Johnson, Gordon Ramsay (allegedly) and John Major. Some might say that would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Mar 20, 2009 14:33:05 GMT
|
|