Adios for now!
Labels: back again
Labels: back again
He goes on to suggest the implementation of different aspects of Sharia law in Britain that is to allow minorities better access to a law that represents their own culture and religion. However, it seems the English went heywire when they were confronted with the idea that the head of their religious institution is actually presenting an idea that is related to application of Islamic concepts in their country. Many many of them just went to the wrong side of the stick.
Among the manifold anxieties that haunt the discussion of the place of Muslims in British society, one of the strongest, reinforced from time to time by the sensational reporting of opinion polls, is that Muslim communities in this country seek the freedom to live under sharia law. And what most people think they know of sharia is that it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments; just a few days ago, it was reported that a ‘forced marriage’ involving a young woman with learning difficulties had been ‘sanctioned under sharia law’ – the kind of story that, in its assumption that we all ‘really’ know what is involved in the practice of sharia, powerfully reinforces the image of – at best – a pre-modern system in which human rights have no role. The problem is freely admitted by Muslim scholars. ‘In the West’, writes Tariq Ramadan in his groundbreaking Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, ‘the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam…It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word’ (p.31). Even when some of the more dramatic fears are set aside, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about that degree of accommodation the law of the land can and should give to minority communities with their own strongly entrenched legal and moral codes. As such, this is not only an issue about Islam but about other faith groups, including Orthodox Judaism; and indeed it spills over into some of the questions which have surfaced sharply in the last twelve months about the right of religious believers in general to opt out of certain legal provisions – as in the problems around Roman Catholic adoption agencies which emerged in relation to the Sexual Orientation Regulations last spring.
This lecture will not attempt a detailed discussion of the nature of sharia, which would be far beyond my competence; my aim is only, as I have said, to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state, with a few thought about what might be entailed in crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom. But it is important to begin by dispelling one or two myths about sharia; so far from being a monolithic system of detailed enactments, sharia designates primarily – to quote Ramadan again – ‘the expression of the universal principles of Islam [and] the framework and the thinking that makes for their actualization in human history’ (32). Universal principles: as any Muslim commentator will insist, what is in view is the eternal and absolute will of God for the universe and for its human inhabitants in particular; but also something that has to be ‘actualized’, not a ready-made system. If shar’ designates the essence of the revealed Law, sharia is the practice of actualizing and applying it; while certain elements of the sharia are specified fairly exactly in the Qur’an and Sunna and in the hadith recognised as authoritative in this respect, there is no single code that can be identified as ‘the’ sharia....
I am proud of my country's national team and I have every right to be. I have not written a word about the African Nations Cup – Ghana 2008 despite the fact that there were so many things to talk about: Abu Trika's "Sympathize with Gaza", the win over Cameroon, the Sudanese coach's comments and most important of all is the drastically poor organization by Ghana. However, today is another day. Egypt gave Cote D'Ivoire ANOTHER spanking today that breaks any silence.
I missed the first half of the match, being unavailable. I was surprised when I heard the taxi driver telling me that Egypt has finished the first half leading by a goal to nil. Damn, the Ivoirians (Elephants) were doing so well all through the tournament. I mean bullshit, I thought we were going to have bad day despite our outstanding performance all through the tournament. Cote D'Ivoire was just superior on paper, but the game was not played on paper. In the pitch, Egypt taught Cote D'Ivoire some lesson tonight that broke the Elephants' arrogance in shame; and gave the whole world, specially the Europeans, something to talk about until Sunday February 13th, 2008.
I am not going to describe the second half, I will leave this video do the talking to tell you how well we played, and how outclassed the Elephants' were.
The win secured Egypt a tough encounter against Cameroon, whom we met and defeated with 4 goals in the group stage, in the tournament's final match. The Pharaohs are just going to make it again, God willing, and we will retain the cup.
During the match, Cairo's innately overcrowded streets were almost empty. I felt like I am in no man's land. Everybody is watching the game. I say it again… EVERYBODY. After the match, it was 1:15 AM in Cairo and I dare you can move your care an inch. Everybody is celebrating, everybody is dancing, everybody is wearing red, black and white and everybody is just shouting the name of their country in joy. I have taken photos of the streets I walked through and they will be available as soon as I come to terms with the whereabouts of my mobile's cable since I have got a brother from hell.
Looking at how 'the other' saw the game. BBC commentators were strangely biased to Cote D'Ivoire. The Europeans know nothing but what their eyes see in their own football leagues. Most of them supported Cote D'Ivoire. People commenting on BBC's 606 were just so funny. One of them never knew that Egypt knew football (guess what, we don't ride camels either :P), another just thought Egyptians were so lucky, but when we scored the 4th goal he started to support Cameroon (anything but Egypt it seems). Others were so angry because they lost their bets on the Elephants to win the trophy… I guess thousands lost money because of us today.
The Pharaohs today were so pharaoh-cious, and won the game pharaoh-and-square ;); quoting some Egyptian on BBC.
Pray with us, Egypt wins the cup for the 6th time and the 2nd time in a row.
Read about Ghana 2008 here.
Last February 3rd marked the second anniversary of the ferry disaster in which more than 1000 Egyptians lost their lives in the Red Sea. No one remembered them. No one mentioned. No one asked what happened to the criminal who let more than a 1000 Egyptians die for the sake of making money. No one asked:
The answer to all the questions is No.
Mamdoh Ismail is spending his time in London, living a life that is better than the one he lead in Egypt. No one is after him. The victims were not remembered, their memory just gone with the wind. No one honored their memories…. They were worthless useless creatures that perished accidently. No one cares.
Read this to remember the victims of corruption and negligence.
Rest in Peace…
"breaks Egypt's border line, will have his leg broken"
This is the first in-your-face message an Egyptian high-rank official delivers publicly to Hamas.
He even proceeded on criticizing Hamas, describing its encounter against Israel as "caricature-like and funny." He explained that it is logical that if you face an enemy you try to hurt them and cause casualties.. In Hamas's case, they face Israel to cause the Palestinian people more suffering, now that their rockets either fall in no-mans-land desert or return back to hit them. Thus, they gain nothing but giving Israel every justification to strike the Palestinians.
In fact this is the first time I find an Egyptian official to attack and criticize Hamas on TV. I think his message is well delivered.
Fiber optic submarine cables
Submarine cables under water
Unless someone convinces me that a fish wanted to get connected to the web to watch Finding Nemo, I would not buy that it is fish that could damage the world's latest technology.
Looking up the internet for any information about low internet connection in Iran I found out that:
Iran has not responded to a western incentive package that includes the offer of state-of-the-art internet technology in return for the suspension of a key part of the country's nuclear programme. (The Guardian)
And later, Iran banned high-speed internet connection to not to allow the west to use it as a pressure point. Read this...
I am neither denying nor confirming the rumours... Like everybody else... I have no clue...
Don't you agree something fishy is going on here?
And if you look up the meaning of the word 'Secularism' in an encyclopedia you would find out that:
To draw away from religious orientation; make worldly.
Secularism is generally the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief. Alternatively, it is a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings. It may also be a synonym for "secularist movement". In the extreme, it is an ideology that holds that religion has no place in public life. (Free Online Dictionary by Farlex)
In the United States, the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect.... There can be no substitute for Christianity ... that was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind . . . it is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
Then comse George Washington:
We have staked the future of government not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the ten commandments of God.
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.... No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency ... We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectful members of society.
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty of as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for its rulers.