Islam News @ NYTWould you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
they misreport, you decide:
Fox News host Gregg Jarrett told viewers that Sarah Palin is “continuing to draw huge crowds while she’s promoting her brand new book.” He then showed old file footage of Palin rallies from the 2008 presidential campaign. Mark Silva hears this will result in “serious disciplinary action.”
If Jarrett isn’t fired outright then FOX has lost whatever scraps of credibility it ever had as a genuine journalism organization. This was rather pathetic, as well.
The legal questions over drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal regions.
Peter Singer says the Devil really does wear Prada:
They’re here, they are selling stuff at incredible prices, thousands of dollars for a dress or a handbag or whatever it might be. And at the same time, of course, we are living in a world in which there are about a billion people who are struggling to survive on less than one U.S. dollar per day. With some more aid from the developed world, untold deaths could be prevented.
So obviously that raises an ethical issue. I mean, there are people who have the money to buy from these stores and who don’t seem to see any moral problem about doing that. But what I want to ask is: Shouldn’t they see some sort of moral problem about that? Isn’t there a question about what we should be spending our money on?
And that’s why the existence of stores like these raises a lot of serious ethical issues that I hope people will think about a little bit. All of us, even if we are not the type to shop at Gucci or Louis Vuitton, have some spare cash. All of us in the developed countries, in the affluent world, spend money on luxuries and frivolities that are really not things that we need. So the question is one that affects you as much as it affects someone who shops in these types of stores. What should I be spending my money on and what does that say about me, about my priorities, and about what I might take to be important?
Britain’s highest court has issued a ‘landmark’ ruling in the case of Debbie Purdy, when they ordered the Director of Public Prosecutions to draw up a policy which would clearly define when prosecutions would and would not be pursued in cases of ‘assisted suicide’. Essentially, what this is likely to mean is people who assist a family member to die will not face prosecution (as there will be no public interest in prosecuting the individuals, and little chance of a jury convicting).
The death, however, must take place outside the country (e.g. the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland) — such an act is still a criminal offence in Britain. According to reports over a 100 people from Britain have used Dignitas, with no prosecutions; however, a doctor is out on bail for assisting his patients to use the Swiss clinic.
The Royal College of Nursing had also dropped its opposition to assisted suicides and adopted a neutral stance, joining The Royal College of Psychiatrists, The Royal College of Anaesthetists and the The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh on this matter. The British Medical Association (the doctors union) remains opposed to assisted suicide.
The Purdy ruling by the House of Lords has sparked a debate across the political spectrum, and calls for an assisted suicide bill — defeated three years in the House of Lords — to be be re-introduced into Parliament. A modification of the current law was also rejected by peers last month.
The Church of England and prominent Catholic, Jewish and Muslim voices, have reiterated their opposition to any ‘assisted suicide’ law in the UK on numerous occassions (I can’t find a Muslim response to the latest ruling). However, I have also come across (liberal) religious believers (including Muslims) who make the following argument in support of a right to taking one’s own life:
I will make this argument given two conditions: first that the person is capable of making an educated decision, and second that their end-of-life experience includes full access to both pastoral and medical care.
The Muslim individual who I came across cited verse 23 of Surat ul-Mu’minun in support of assisted suicide or euthanasia. I am not sure his argument holds up on a number of fronts, but what do you think?
US abortion doctor is shot dead.
aziz says below:
the bigotry issue is a red herring – derbyshire’s screed amounts to essentially a rationalization of “ewwwwww!”
i think what aziz is describing is what we normally term “moral reasoning” 
Berliners are preparing to go to the polls to decide whether children should have a choice between classes in secular ethics or religion. Berlin is one of the few German states which do not have compulsory classes on religion.
Catholics and Muslims have campaigned for a ‘yes’ vote.
The influence of the Turkish model of secularism and religion is clear on one of the (Turkish) Muslim groups campaiging for a ‘yes’ vote:
The Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (Ditib) is one such supporter. Their spokesperson Ender Cetin argues that fostering a knowledge of officially-sanctioned Islam can help prevent young people from being lured into radicalism.
“It’s important that schools have enlightened Islamic lessons, and that we avoid unofficial Koran lessons in backyards.”
See more from FaithWorld and Spiegel.
i have short piece in the guardian where i defend old-school morality against peter singer’s utilitarianism. though i don’t make the accusation against singer, i believe many atheists have such a dislike of religion they needlessly strip away a lot of useful insights from thinkers of a religious inclination when it comes to a moral order necessary for human flourishing.
Resuscitating Morality in Public Discourse. here’s one thing that i think needs to be brought back into the open: the importance of prejudice & perspective in in assessments of moral and ethical questions. we all have them, but many people talk as if they have tapped into some “universal” moral code to which all others are deviants. this makes sense because many people seem to feel if they can’t express a universal and general claim, then they can’t make it at all. but that’s not really how the human mind works, the reflective, consistent and conscious part of the mind is only a sliver of cognition.
speaking of which, i’ll be writing about my objections to peter singer’s extreme utilitarianism in *comment is free* soon…watch for it.
Christians should live by example not argument, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams proclaimed yesterday, before announcing he would be moving out of Lambeth Palace to work in a glass office leased from Canary Wharf. Dr Williams also plans to take up residence in a three bedroom rabbit hutch and live on 30K PA like the rest of us.
I wish.
below willow says:
How are we qualifying abnormal? Uncommon? If that’s the case, then yes, being gay/being gay and wanting to get married is abnormal. But if we’re qualifying abnormal as uncommon and *harmful*, marrying your cousin would seem to take the cake. Gay marriages aren’t going to produce genetically weak offspring.
how does one define harm? the libertarian philosopher robert nozick asserted that there should be no ban between capitalist transactions between consenting adults. in a liberal conception where individuals reign supreme as the final arbiters of right & wrong, harm & health, i do not believe that gay marriage is harmful at all. au contraire! receiving state recognition confers upon homosexuals psychological satisfaction.
but this last part points to the fact that we are not islands, but a thick web of social connections. we conform, we have norms, and the opinions and attitudes of others rebound upon us. a man or woman walking down the street naked does not harm an individual, but they do harm to the body politic, and cause psychological distress. a women walking down the street in egypt in short-shorts does not harm, but she violates communal norms and elicits distress. and yes, women who veil their faces cause psychological distress to those who are forced to interact with them in certain cultures where such clothing is very rare.
liberal legal assumptions are fictions when measured against human nature. perhaps they are useful fictions within normal bounds, but we should perhaps be cautious about testing their bounds….
Googling around, I came across reviews of two articles on Buddhism and war.