RSSAllar Færslur í "Annað" Flokkur

ÍRANSKAR KONUR EFTIR ÍSLAMSKA byltinguna

Ansiia Khaz Allii


Meira en þrjátíu ár eru liðin frá sigri íslamska byltingarinnar í Íran, enn er eftir a fjölda spurninga og tvíræðni um hvernig íslamska lýðveldið og lög þess taka á vandamál samtímans og núverandi aðstæður, sérstaklega með tilliti til kvenna og kvenréttinda. Þessi stutta grein mun varpa ljósi á þessi mál og kynna sér stöðu kvenna á ýmsum sviðum, að bera þetta saman við ástandið fyrir íslömsku byltinguna. Áreiðanleg og sannvottuð gögn hafa verið notuð hvar sem hægt er. Inngangurinn tekur saman fjölda fræðilegra og lagalegra rannsókna sem veita grundvöllur fyrir síðari hagnýtari greiningu og eru heimildirnar þaðan sem gögnin hafa verið fengin.
Í fyrsta hluta er fjallað um viðhorf forystu Íslamska lýðveldisins Írans til kvenna og réttindi kvenna, og tekur síðan yfirgripsmikið yfir lögin sem sett voru frá íslömsku byltingunni um konur og stöðu þeirra í samfélaginu. Annar hluti fjallar um menningar- og menningarmál kvenna educational developments since the Revolution and compares these to the pre-revolutionary situation. The third section looks at women’s political, social and economic participation and considers both quantative and qualitative aspects of their employment. The fourth section then examines questions of the family, the relationship between women and the family, and the family’s role in limiting or increasing women’s rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

| september 19, 2010 | Athugasemdir 0
Lesa meira

Um bandarísku stjórnarskrána frá sjónarhóli Kóransins og Medina sáttmála

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad

Þessi grein er alls ekki tæmandi samanburður á bandarísku stjórnarskránni við Kóraninn og Medina sáttmálann.. Frekar, það kannar hvers konar innsýn sem samanburður á þessum tveimur skjölum gæti gefið til kynna. Samkvæmt því, stjórnarskrárviðfangsefnin sem valin eru eru þau þar sem höfundur eða umsagnaraðilar um eldri drög skynjuðu mat innan íslamskra heimilda.4 Þessari grein ber að taka sem boð um framtíðarrannsóknir með kerfisbundnari samanburði. Auk skynsamlegrar ályktunar úr texta Kóransins og Medínusáttmálans, Ég mun styðjast við skoðanir félaga spámannsins eins og þær eru skráðar í helstu Hadith bókunum. Á hliðstæðan hátt, sjónarmið stofnenda bandaríska lýðveldisins um stjórnarskrármál
málin eru sett fram í The Federalist Papers. Við munum byrja á því að endurskoða Medina sáttmálann, og leggja síðan mat á markmið stjórnarskrárinnar eins og þau eru sett fram í inngangsorðum. Eftir það, við munum kanna margvísleg efni í meginmáli textans sem falla undir þá skoðun sem hér er lögð til. Einkum, þetta eru hlutverk ríkisvaldsins samkvæmt aðgreiningu valds, hlutverk kosninga við að ákveða næsta þjóðhöfðingja, refsinguna fyrir landráð, tilvist þrælaverslunar og kynþáttafordóma, lýðveldisstjórnarformið, ákvæði um breytingu á stjórnarskrá, trúarpróf, og réttindaskrá. Loksins, við íhugum rök Madisons um hvernig stjórnarskráin getur talist fyrirmynd til að forðast fitnah.
Madina sáttmálinn um að múslimar leggja mikla þýðingu fyrir samtök sín sem stjórnmálasamfélag má sjá í þeirri staðreynd að dagatal þeirra er hvorki frá fæðingu né dauða spámannsins., en frá stofnun fyrstu múslimastjórnarinnar í borgríkinu Madinah í 622. Áður en Madinah var stofnað, Arabar höfðu ekkert ríki til að „koma á réttlæti, tryggja innanlands
ró, sjá um sameiginlegar varnir, stuðla að almennri velferð, og tryggja blessanir frelsisins …“ Venjan á þeim tíma var að þeir sem voru of veikir til að vernda sig urðu skjólstæðingar verndara (vali). Múhameð, sjálfur munaðarlaus, var alinn upp undir vernd frænda síns Abu Talib.
Eftir dauða frænda hans í 619, Múhameð fékk boð frá arabískum ættbálkum Yathrib, sem eru í deilum, um að stjórna þar. Einu sinni í Yathrib, hann gjörði sáttmála við alla íbúa þess, hvort sem þeir hefðu samþykkt íslam eða ekki. Jafnvel gyðingar sem bjuggu í útjaðri borgarinnar gerðust áskrifendur að henni.

| september 09, 2010 | Athugasemdir 0
Lesa meira

Hamas-stefna Bandaríkjanna hindrar frið í Miðausturlöndum

Henry Siegman


Failed bilateral talks over these past 16 years have shown that a Middle East peace accord can never be reached by the parties themselves. Israeli governments believe they can defy international condemnation of their illegal colonial project in the West Bank because they can count on the US to oppose international sanctions. Bilateral talks that are not framed by US-formulated parameters (based on Security Council resolutions, the Oslo accords, the Arab Peace Initiative, the “road map” and other previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements) cannot succeed. Israel’s government believes that the US Congress will not permit an American president to issue such parameters and demand their acceptance. What hope there is for the bilateral talks that resume in Washington DC on September 2 depends entirely on President Obama proving that belief to be wrong, and on whether the “bridging proposals” he has promised, should the talks reach an impasse, are a euphemism for the submission of American parameters. Such a US initiative must offer Israel iron-clad assurances for its security within its pre-1967 borders, but at the same time must make it clear these assurances are not available if Israel insists on denying Palestinians a viable and sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza. This paper focuses on the other major obstacle to a permanent status agreement: the absence of an effective Palestinian interlocutor. Addressing Hamas’ legitimate grievances – and as noted in a recent CENTCOM report, Hamas has legitimate grievances – could lead to its return to a Palestinian coalition government that would provide Israel with a credible peace partner. If that outreach fails because of Hamas’ rejectionism, the organization’s ability to prevent a reasonable accord negotiated by other Palestinian political parties will have been significantly impeded. If the Obama administration will not lead an international initiative to define the parameters of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement and actively promote Palestinian political reconciliation, Europe must do so, and hope America will follow. Því miður, there is no silver bullet that can guarantee the goal of “two states living side by side in peace and security.”
But President Obama’s present course absolutely precludes it.

| september 07, 2010 | Athugasemdir 0
Lesa meira

ISLAMIC FAITH in AMERICA

JAMES A. Beverley

AMERICA BEGINS A NEW MILLENNIUM AS ONE OF THE MOST RELIGIOUSLY diverse nations of all time. Nowhere else in the world do so many people—offered a choice free from government influence—identify with such a wide range of religious and spiritual communities. Nowhere else has the human search for meaning been so varied. In America today, there are communities and centers for worship representing all of the world’s religions.
The American landscape is dotted with churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques. Zen Buddhist zendos sit next to Pentecostal tabernacles. Hasidic Jews walk the streets with Hindu swamis. Most amazing of all, relatively little conflict has occurred among religions in America. This fact, combined with a high level of tolerance of each other’s beliefs and practices, has let America produce people of goodwill ready to try to resolve any tensions that might emerge. The Faith in America series celebrates America’s diverse religious heritage.
People of faith and ideals who longed for a better world have created a unique society where freedom of religious expression is a keynote of culture. The freedom that America offers to people of faith means that not only have ancient religions found a home
here, but that newer ways of expressing spirituality have also taken root. From huge churches in large cities to small spiritual communities in towns and villages, faith in America has never been stronger. The paths that different religions have taken through
American history is just one of the stories readers will find in this series. Like anything people create, religion is far from perfect. Hins vegar, its contribution to the culture and its ability to help people are impressive, and these accomplishments will be found in all the books in the series. Á meðan, awareness and tolerance of the different paths our neighbors take to the spiritual life has become an increasingly important part of citizenship in America.
Today, more than ever, America as a whole puts its faith in freedom—the freedom to believe.

| Ág 21, 2010 | Athugasemdir 0
Lesa meira

ER TAYYIP ERDOĞAN NÝI NASSER

Hurriyet DailyNews
Mustafa Akyol

Last Thursday night, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan suddenly became the focus of all the news channels in the country. The reason was that he had stormed the diplomatic scene at a World Economic Forum panel in Davos by accusing Israeli President Shimon Peres for “killing people,” and reminding the biblical commandment, “Thou shall not kill.”

This was not just breaking news to the media, but also music to the ears of millions of Turks who were deeply touched by the recent bloodshed that Israel caused in the Gaza Strip. Some of them even hit the streets in order to welcome Erdoğan, who had decided to come to Istanbul right away after the tense debate. Thousands of cars headed toward the Atatürk airport in the middle of the night in order to welcome “the conqueror of Davos.

” ’Turkey is proud of you’

I personally had a more mundane problem at that very moment. In order to catch my 5 a.m. flight, I had left home at a quite reasonable time, 2.30 a.m. But the traffic to the airport was completely locked because of the amazing number of cars destined toward it. Svo, after leaving the taxi at the start of the long river of vehicles, I had to walk on the highway for about two kilometers, my hands on my luggage and my eyes on the crowd. When Erdoğan finally stepped out of the terminal, while I just walking into it, thousands applauded him and started to chant, “Turkey is proud of you!”

| Ág 01, 2010 | Athugasemdir 0
Lesa meira