A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The evening was organised by York University Islam Society as part of Islam Awareness week. According to the society, the aim of the week has been to “create brotherhood and unity” and raise understanding of the Islam faith.
The speech was preceded by children handing out flowers and a recital of a blessing and praise to Allah from the Koran.
Al-Kawthari, who gives lectures regularly and spoke only last week at Manchester Met UCLAN, revealed this, his first visit to York, is the first time ever he has been greeted by controversy.
The scholar, who has studied Arabic and Islam all over the world and has 25 years of expertise in Islam finance, ethics and jurisprudence, began by hoping to dispel media propaganda and portray real Islam, saying “a human is an enemy of that which he/she is ignorant of”.
He rejected extremism and terrorism in Islam, stating the two meanings of ‘Islam’ are submission to God and peace. He added that Islam “promotes and encourages peace” between Muslims and non-Muslims and the Koran teaches Muslims to treat other faiths justly and live amicably in society.
Al-Kawthari said Islam contains “no compulsion, no force, no exertion” in trying to make people follow Islam and Muslims can interact with non-Muslims as long as it doesn’t affect them following Islam. Practicing religion well assures a good relationship with Allah and a good next life, he added.
Islam is “a complete way of life” he said, with laws everything from drinking, walking, talking and driving. It is a life a non-Muslim can not be expected to understand.
Al-Kawthari spoke also of Islam attitudes to human rights, including kindness to animals and trees, pointing out various similarities between Judaism and Islam.
He defended penal laws, some of which are seen as controversial and out-dated in Western countries, such as stoning and amputation, and insisted they are not always followed and must be taken to court and are only enforceable in Islamic States, which Britain is not.
He then moved on to laws about sex and marriage, about which he has written a book, stressing the importance of equal rights within a marriage, respect and consideration.
The evening ended with a question and answer session, which raised some controversial and challenging questions about homophobia and honour killings. Al-Kawthari argued that honour killings are a result of culture, not religion, and ended by hoping Islamaphobia will reduce, not only here at York, but across the country.
Fantastic talk; i really enjoyed it!
Well that seems all very nice and dandy - wait a minute stoning and amputation are not always followed but surely the point is that they still are and are barbaric ways of punishment and execution. How can the fact that these punishments still exist within Islamic states coexist with his statement that Islam is a peaceful religion? Or as a non-muslim am I "not expected to understand"???
A peaceful society can operate with punishments which are harsher than those which exist in Western society; if you think they are barbaric forms of punishment; then choose not to live in an Islamic state. Britain is not an Islamic state and i assume you live in Britain so everything is nice and dandy.
This talk seemed less like 'Misconceptions about Islam' and more like 'Responding to that Yorker article'.
In addition, several questions were brought up which the speaker simply failed to address, instead choosing to dodge the question with vacuous claims regarding context, even when being corrected of a passage from the Koran he himself took out of context.
Notably, the speaker justified his belief that adulterers should be stoned and thieves should have their hand cut off with the claim that this can only occur in a 'true' Islamic state. In reality, the speaker should have had the decency to point out that sometimes, the Koran and Hadith contain horrific things which a respectable society should not and would not tolerant.
In conclusion, I felt that the speaker gave the impression that if it were not for his need to follow the Koran, he would have a more respectable morality. Instead, it bound him to the belief that he must accept the truly sickening concepts of his holy book, such as a hell and sin, and in some ways I felt sorry for him having to carry that burden.
I don't believe he took the Qur'anic verse out of context, rather the person who "corrected" him didn't have a clue on what he was on about and that would be clear to one who knows Qur'anic exegesis. Can the person who "corrected" him tell us about the rules of Qur'anic exegesis and if he knows Arabic at the level of the understanding the Qur'an or is he a blind follower of Islamophobes like the author of the previous article attacking the speaker?
As for adulterers, do you want me to show you the beliefs in the BIBLE and in the TORAH about the punishments for similar? Shall I show you about the verses about even babies being killed?
Now where are the people with hypocritical and one-sided thinking? Are they now going to condemn the Bible and the Torah?
Now the real question is not the laws and rules of Islam, but rather the proofs of Islam since if it can be proven that the Qur'an is the Word of God, that it is a supernatural revelation, then no amount of moral relativism or liberalism can say the Islam is wrong.
As for sickening concepts, the only ones who would find them sickening are those who failed to understand the context, paradigms, and fail to open their eyes to other views and evidences.
Such rules would only be barabaric according to some people, not all people, according to some views, not all views, according to some worldviews, not all worldviews. If one adopts relativism, specifically moral relativism, then one can't condemn other cultures. And this by anthropologists is mentioned because everyone is influenced by their own cultural factors and environment and can't fully understand others.
Now what we need to do is consider the whole picture. Whatever is from God cannot be classified as barbaric at all, since it is He Who owns all and sustains all and has rights over creation. The creation (neither me nor you or anyone else) have rights over Allah/God. Thus whatever He does is not a violation of any right, thus not unjust. He can do whatever.
Furthermore since He is our Creater, knowing the intricacies if human nature, full knowledge of everything, something psychology nor any science or materialistic philosophy can achieve, He is best suited to establish our laws and know what is best for us.
One only needs to look at the amount of crime in the USA in terms of murders and compare it to the murder rate in Saudi Arabia, or the rate of theft.
Also just look at the Prophetic example of where he forgave the one who killed his own child. He forgave many who tried to kill him. How many people can actually do that? What Prophet Muhammed (Sallalahu alaihi wa sallam) then bloodthirsty as some bigots say he is? Clearly no!
It is clear that those who campaigned against the ISOC of York and the speaker are on an agenda of hatred, bigotry and intolerance, and this is shown by the earlier calls to ban the speaker and to mock him, instead of dealing with his arguments. It is the peak of intolerance to accuse other people of intolerance or to ban them just because you do not agree with him.
I think people should go learn some basic logic and stop using emotional arguments.
People do not condemn the bible because our saviour is loving and would never condemn the type of punishments that Isamlic states concider to be following Gods law. I would like to point at, that Jesus forgave Mary Magdalene, a prosititue he didnt force death upon her, how can that same loving God justify these punishments the Islamic states are enforcing? I might add that even in the Torah where God is 'vengful' God send down prophets of the Lord to carry out these actions, while I might ass that these prophets warned and gave the societies a chance before 'smiting'.
The bible (and the same God) teaches forgiveness and tolerance and peace because thats what works in todays society, God will do the punishing in the afterlife, it is not up to us to torture Gods children, taking that upon yourself is surely a mortal sin.
Lastly, even though its technically not happening here (or just being covered up really well) you dont see the Pope blowing up abortion clinics in the Catholic capital of Rome, and why because only GOD has that power. Your 'society' should learn to forgive, its the only way you will get peace.
I might just point something out too to add to my above statement.
#5 your exact words, 'God has rights over creation' so when you say that stoning a prostitute is ok, how can you think that its ok if God has the rights of who lives and dies and technically the prostitue is Gods creation, surely only he can punish her!
Let me get the quotes from the Bible in a bit.
As for the Torah comment, an atheist can just argue that what warning did the child get? The Qur'an doesn't go around describing babies being punished...
As for post 5. Yes the prostitute is His creation and it is His right to punish, but this does not preclude His authority to command others to also punish and establish the law. In fact if He didn't give permission, then no thief could be put in jail, nor anyone punished. His laws are for the benefit of humanity and society at large.
I do not understand how you made the connection that you made, it makes no logical sense.
As for Allah being Most Merciful, I believe its enough proof of His mercy that He doesn't destroy all humans straight away when they disobey Him. Instead He continues to sustain and provide for them from the air that we breathe to the brains that we use. This though many deny Him and deny His favours
Fantastic lecture - I blogged about it here if anyone is interested:
http://sacredsojourner.blogspot.com/
I hate god botherers
From the above comments I think an important distinction needs to be made.
A lot of people hear about whippings of young women and stonings of men, justified as being in accordance with Sharia law, and think that is something that makes Islam substantially different from other peoples of the book (Jews and Christians). In reality it isn't.
As mentioned above, both the Bible and the Torah contain some pretty awful punishments, often following an 'eye for an eye' mentality. These have subsequently been used to argue for some pretty gruesome forms of repression. The Roman Catholic church and the Church of England used interpretations of the Bible to justify the Inquisition and the burnings of Catholics. Now in the Middle East some radical Islamic groups use this same sense of justification, looking into the religious texts and making an interpretation of them in accordance to fit with their pre-conceptualised views.
As with any faith, a lot of it is open to the believer, and if the believer has certain dispositions (whether it is a complete rejection of Western morality, a fear of Islamification of society or the claiming of Israel as solely their land and not for any goys), they'll be able to find parts of religious texts which are open enough for them to justify it.
Its a gross-misrepresentation to say that Islam has a natural tendancy to be violent, or is much more oppresive and crude compared with other faiths. They're all quite similar, the only difference is the interpretations made by certain groups.
Its all in the believer.
But social and moral law should be separated. When Peter was put into Jail it wasnt because Jesus wanted it, more because they are social laws. For the babies, adults naturally assume responisibility for their children and as I recall Moses warned Ramasees, and your islamic scripture is derived from the Torah so you cannot really use this in your defense can you! Honor killings (although cultural not religious) your fooling no one, honour killings are a way of keeping women under wraps because in your society their freedom of speech is no existant, and in that respect you are killing your children if by culture and not religion this is simply murder so forgive me if im not too taken with Islamic society. Islam as a peaceful religon is all good, but when interpretations of the Qu'ran can go from a actually nice peaceful religon to people murdering own members of their family and friends I start to question 'Gods motive' and the only conclusion I come to is that Islam has become so much of a big political force in Asia that leaders are using religion to enforce his own rules and power not 'Allahs' I am NEVER going to believe that God told you guys to murder and torture his people NEVER it is barbaric and immoral! When Jesus came to earth he preached love and compassion and died for what he believed in, never rose a hand to no one. Your prophet came preaching the word of God and SLAUGHTERED christians to turn Churches into Mosque and look he gain alot of follwers, now if this doesnt automatically should POLITICALLY MOTIVATED I dont know what does. The Bible teaches tolerance, which I have but forgiveness is very hard to do when innocent women are being stoned to death around the world, how can this not seem barbaric?!
Mohammed never slaughtered any Christians. He formed a fighting force which united a group of factional and poorly organised tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. The armies that he did beat were comprised of Idol worshiping tribesmen, the same God destroyed in Israel.
He personally stipulated that an Islamic society should be one where, although the Muslim population should follow the Qu'ran and his teachings, the rest of the population are free to follow their own faith and work. They are still asked to defend society just as everyone else is, and are subject to the same set of taxes, but they were free to observe Christianity and Judaism as they pleased.
The early Muslim empire was by far the most tolerant in the world at that time. They allowed members of all faiths to have open dialogue, worship openly, marry, and trade between each other. At the same time Western Europe was busy killing heretics and enforcing Christianity. Its no wonder the Arab world was the forefront of scholarly work and thinking during that time.
Again, its about interpretations made of religious texts that justify what is being done! The KKK used Christianity as some of their backing for their killing of black people, the Evanglists in America use Christianity as their justification for homophobia, the IDF and Ultra-Zionists use Judaism as their backing for bring suffering and misery to many Palestinianns, the Ugandan religious establishment uses Christianity as its backing for virelent homophobia and preventing women from being in the clergy. And Al-Qaida, the Taliban, and Wahhabists use their interpretations of Islamic teachings as their backing!
The Prophet Muhammed (Sallalahu alaihi wa sallam) did not go around killing Christians or Jews or others. Nor did he force them to accept Islam. He did though engaged in defensive warfare to save the oppressed people.
You didn't see the Hindu population wiped out in the 1000 year rule of India by Muslims or the large Coptic Christian population in Egypt, nor the Jewish population in Palestine (before the 20th century).
Also a point to Paul about the non-Muslims defending society. Actually in Muslim states, the non-Muslims (in the Muslim country) did not have to defend the Muslim country in war, in fact the Muslims had to defend them. That is what I remember from Islamic Law.
Anyways anyone with basic history of the Ottoman empire will know that there were separate courts for Jews and Christians, under an Islamic/Shari'a state. The Christians would appoint their own bishops, collect their own taxes etc. In fact the Jews loved to come there and asked others in Europe to go there. Read the book The Jews of Islam... He records letters from Ottoman Jews to European Jews telling them to come live under Islamic law...because it was so good.
Also one has to understand the rulings about the stoning etc and know the context. There are strict criteria for it and for a person not living in such a country, nor being a Muslim, nor being able to understand the paradigm, nor having knowledge of the framework, would show remarkable Islamophobia and ignorance and should not comment on Islamic law.
We shouldn't be forcing our subjective values on others, after all, Western values are ever evolving so who is to say that what you say now will remain in the future?
Also for Islamic punishments like for adultery, stoning, they apply to both men and women so to specifically mention women is deceitful, if not ignorance.
As for Mufti Muhammed Adam here, his teachings clearly show he is an 'alim teaching as excellent morals and values. In fact, I haven't heard him lecture on anything besides issues related to peace, love and mutual respect. Anyone who regularly follows his talks will say that they become addicted to his talks that help people (Muslims and even non-Muslims) live in society with high moral values!
In relation to the articles on the legal punishment of theft and the other on the legal punishment of fornication, the articles clearly state why Islamically there are such strong punishments:
"The different penalties prescribed by Shariah is not in order to inflict harm on people and make them suffer, rather the Shariah concept for imposing penalties for the various crimes is that, they prevent harm, destruction and anarchy in the society. They are not prescribed in order to harm people, but the contrary. "
That simply means that the harsher the punishment for the crime, the more likely people in society would refrain from committing the crimes. This is a clear example of Mufti Muhammad explaining the issue in light of the Qur'an and classical texts of the Islamic law doctrine. He is by no means issuing a verdict. These are the divine laws stipulated for the Muslims in lands where there are established Islamic governments.
Also the Mufti is clearly against honour killings as known from his fatwas and talk at York.
As for the Bible:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)
"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" (Psalm 137:9)
"This is what the Lord Almighty says... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:3)
Now where is the accusers of discrimination? Where are the Christians who point fingers at Muslims and the Qur'an?
Whether the above verses are out of context or not is for any fair minded person to decide. The fact is people have distorted the Bible at times and there are verses that can be misused and have been in the past.
Also for adultery in the Bible and Christianity:
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." Why should only a daughter of a priest gets burnt to death if she profanes herself? Why can't this law apply to all daughters?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
Mirza: you do realise that people who criticise islam for its views on homosexuality might also criticise judaism and christianity as well?
In addition if we are to take your statement that non-muslims shouldn't comment on muslim affairs, who are you to criticize Christianity, or is it just a one way street?
People who criticise Islam on its views on homosexuality do so on baseless grounds. Islam alongside other religions believes that homosexuality is not allowed; logic states that if something is not allowed and that it is God that disallows it; then it will be punished hence is a sin. So Muslims alongside Christians and Jews believe homosexuality to be a sin; this however does not equate to homophobia as Muslims do not hate homosexuals and the Quran does not teach Muslims to hate homosexuals. If you want to know what Islam teaches; then one should refer to the Quran and the life of Muhammad peace be upon him. The Quran does not say that Muslims should hate homosexuals and the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did not teach Muslims to hate homosexuals. Therefore homophobia is non existant in Islam. Certain ignorant Muslims may hate homosexuals but this is not what Islam teaches these ignorant Muslims. In conclusion Islam is not homophobic.
And quoting the Mufti who gave the talk on wednesday; "Muslims should love homosexuals rather than hate them".
homosexuality is a sin but homophobia is non existent within Islam? Sorry but that's just ridiculous
No its not; its a simple concept. When a religion does not allow something that something is then sinful. Islam and Judaism do not allow the consumption of pork hence pork consumption is sinful but there is no phobia of pork eaters existant in Islam and Judaism.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report