Well they are supposed to be here to spread Sharia (e.g. see [broken link removed] with Dr. Bari of the MCB where he recommends the introduction of stoning as a punishment in the British legal system), so religious leaders are fairly happy if the percentage of Muslims in a non-Muslim country is rising (that's assuming they don't integrate/westernise of course). What really ****es them off are organisations such as the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, who use the safety of Europe to try to reform Islam. http://ex-muslim.org.uk/I assume many practicing Muslims here (especially if formerly resident in a repressive Islamic state) appreciate the relative personal freedom, religious freedom that this state offers. But I wonder what the religious leaders/clerics of their home countries have to say about that?...
How do they feel about their former parishioners living a new life (mostly) free from institutionalised misogyny, persecution, repression...?
Do they not have a sence of Humour.
Anyway, I'm off to buy my very own Mohamed bear on ebay.
I'm not entirely certain that what they did in this case was a breach of human rights. Her punishment was not inhumane (15 days imprisonment), and her crime was something that is technically punishable in Ireland also (I assume you feel Ireland has a reasonable human rights record).So if a country is responsible for a major human rights catastrophe, you think that they should be immune from criticism for relatively minor human rights breaches?
Thus, this keeps poor and uneducated populations from rising against governments. Often governments are aided and abetted by Amman’s (or indeed archbishops) who have special privileges and a position of some local power.
I can understand where you're coming from Banker, but its an uneasy comparison. While catholic women were repressed they were not stoned to death. Maybe shamed to death, but their punishment was not murder.
Aah - a little bit of perspective here would be nice.Well what I ve heard of the magdalen laundries sounds a lot worse than the 15 days the lady in question will have to endure. Then of course there is the awful treatment of children by our religious orders ... its possible to think that stoning is easier than what the poor kids had to endure.
Aah - a little bit of perspective here would be nice.
Thirdly the treatment of the children was by neglect rather than intent - unlike with stoning.
Noone in Ireland or Europe is advocating the reintroduction of Magdalen Laundries, people are advocating the introduction of stoning though.
Secondly, perhaps you should ask those kids and those people stoned to death if they would prefer to be stoned to death or in a laundry.
I'm not entirely certain that what they did in this case was a breach of human rights. Her punishment was not inhumane (15 days imprisonment), and her crime was something that is technically punishable in Ireland also (I assume you feel Ireland has a reasonable human rights record).
December 31st 1930: Mayo County Council is dissolved by ministerial order for refusing to appoint Miss Letitia Dunbar-Harrison to the position of county librarian on the grounds that she is a Protestant. "The Appointments Commissioners abolished at one stroke an Augean stable of intrigue and jobbery," says The Irish Times.
When her class decided to name to the teddy Muhammad she as an educated person should have realized that this will cause with the local very verbal sects. She should not have allowed that to happen and maybe consulted with her head teacher what to do.
I regularly go to the Muslim world and I always have been treated with respect and treated them with respect. I behave according to local customs where ever I am, if you show respect to other people they show respect to you.
Hindsight provides such clarity to a sequence of events. I am sure she would have handled the situation differently if she were given the opportunity to relive it.
Ask yourself this:
- Would we have seen the same response if she was a male Sudanese Muslim teacher and the same incident occured?
- Isn't it entirely possible that equal offence would have been taken if she allowed the children to name the teddy bear, the children chose Mohammed and she told them to pick a different name?
[/size][/font]
Are you male or female? I regularly meet people of many different nations and creeds in my line of work and manage to avoid offending most of them, but this is a very different experience to conforming to the laws of a certain country while you live there. Especially when these laws appear arbitrary and completely unreasonable.
If you were visiting Tehran and invoked some gesture or phrase that led to the authorities to suspect you were a homosexual, facing execution as a consequence, would you blame yourself for not being aware of the local "custom"?
Now call me crazy but nobody forced that woman (Gillian) to go to Sudan an work there.
In any case, I do understand what you mean with the example, but still even when these laws appear arbitrary and completely unreasonable it's the law. When you decide to live/visit there you have to accept the local law.
Anybody coming to this country needs to accept the local law how ever unresonable that law might be in his/her view. Sure we don't stone people or brun them (anymore) but still if you break irish law you get your punishment and than as a "non national" you might get thrown out of the country.
Do you want to change your tune or are you still gung ho for bombing them back to the stone ages, just in case?I would never go to Persia until the current terrorist goverment is gone. That has nothing to do with my religion or sexuality. It's common sense. In fact I think we should bomb that little country back to the stone ages. And that has nothing to do with religon but rather with terrorist activity and the fact that we can't let that little Hitler have an atomic weapon because he will wipe Israel from the map.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?