Balance of Rights

http://google.com google [url=http://google.com] google [/url]

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ chat room

Hey
Im wondering if any of you happen to know a good place to buy adult sex toys?
I recently caught my boyfriend cheating on me... so i dumped him and im looking for a new ' friend ' lol.
maybe i'll look around for free dating sites but for now a nice sex toy will do.
any advice would be great!
thanksss

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE > buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
http://www.blinklist.com/cheap_viagra_online_from_ca/ > cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
http://www.blinklist.com/cheap_viagra_online_from_ca/ > cheap viagra
Thank you!

http://estadium.ya.com/prjkd/ sex toys

that doesnt even make sense

Victoria,

You also should come to grips with your religion.

But just maybe it is your spelling that has led you astray?? I trust you are more careful when you fill out your medical history for your doctors.

lib- just because you've added the word 'doctor' to your repetoire (incorrect spelling? i refuse to do spellcheck) doesnt actaully mean you are comenting on topic- but at least it shows you have a peripheral awareness of the subject, so i guess is ahould be happy for that small grace

peace

I leave for a few days and lo and behold, The Jihadist reappears dealing again from her flawed Islamic deck of "wishy wash".

Jihadist, please come to grips with the flaws of your religion as outlined below once again and then get back to us with your rebuttal.

Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who funds these terrorists?? Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Hmmm, I have never seen a commenting Muslim to include The Jihadist criticize Iran. I wonder why that is?????

Jihadist:
Thanks for the clarifiaction - what I know of Shariah is what I've heard from non-Muslim sources, and is likely about as accurate as what most Christians thnk they know about Pagans.

**Personally, as a woman I thought it to be patriachial that woman, when married, is expected to subsume her identity to a man. But who am I to complain when even in the west, once a woman got married, she takes on her husband's surname and have all her children take on her husband's surname too.**

I discovered that I was pregnant with my daughter a few weeks after I had ended my romantic relationship with her dad - not that I would have stayed with him had I known beforehand. He asked me if I wanted to get married - I did not. I didn't see being pregnant as a good reason to marry someone that I wouldn't marry otherwise. She has my last name. When I married my ex, she was in grade school, and I took his last name. It didn't occur to me at the time how much it would bother her hat her name was not he same as either of her parents. When we divorced, of course, I took back my own name, and was amazed at how much of a hassle it was to get back the name that was on my birth certificate. Fast forward several years to my husband's proposal. One of the things I made clear was that I did not intend to use his name. I told him that if t was important for us to have the same name that he would have to take mine, since I felt that it was more important for my daughter tohave my name than for me to have his. He considered it for a minute, and as he began to realize how much hassle it would be to change all his personal and finacial records to a new name, he asked me if it was that pig a pain in the arse for women to change their names when we married. I told him that it was indeed, and he shook his head, saying, "Damn, y'all must really love us."

A good friend of mine didn't change her name when she and her husband married almost twenty years ago. She recently decided that she wanted to take his last name, and found tat it's even harder to do after the fact. One of the employees at the Clerk of Court's office asked her at one point, "Why didn't you just do this when you got maried, like everyone else does?" My friend kindly took the time to explain to her exactly why that was none of her damned business and how asking that question exceeded the parameters of her job description.

**Actually, under the Shariah, a Muslim woman is not expected to take on her husband's name when she married him. She keeps her own property and her husband can never touch them without her prior consent. Basically, for a married Muslim woman, what is hers is hers, but what is her husband's is also hers.**

Good idea. We maintain separate financial accounts, and have a prenup detailing that what was his before we married remains his, and what was mine before we married remains mine. I insisted on this after my ex accused me of having attempted to defraud him.

Jihadist & Victoria,

You've given me a lot to think about. I have to attend to other things tonight, but I'll try to respond to you tomorrow - if this thread is still here - it's almost time for a change, I think.

My best to both of you.

Ted Baines

I just saw your post.

In days of yore, there were no aspirins, no Viagra too. So camel's or cow's urine are good for medication of wounds, sores and swells on its own or mixed with other natural items.

A former president of India in the last century said he drank his own urine everyday for health. Don't ask me if it taste like salted tea or whiskey. But he did live a long life.

Go into any Chinese phamacist or traditional medicine shop and one will find everything from bat's droppings to snake's venom as remedies for various ailments. And effective too.

......and now to join the fun on marraige between Muslims and non-Muslims

Halozcel

When I was single, some non-Muslim men said they would convert to Islam so they can marry me. No compulsion there, only reacting from being in lust, not in love or to love.

Men are sometimes silly, letting their hormones rule their brains. But very flattering for them to say so and made me quite vain for about three seconds after they've said it. It made me realise how much premium men placed on beauty in women above every other nobler qualities a woman thinks she has. We women are naive in this way.

No such thing as inner beauty in women for men, only outer beauty so they can display the women like trophies - trophy wives. The will change their religion, their citizenship, their country of residence, their jobs to get, and be with the woman they want. Some men can be so very shallow eh? Might as well stuff the trophy wife and hang her up the wall in between that moose head and marlin.

Norrie Hoyt

Yes just got home. Good to be back. Lost 3 kg due to drinking too much water in the searing, scorching heat of Saudi Arabia. The full hijab, ironically, do keep me cool and less dehydrated.

As for non-Muslim and Muslim marraiges that seems to be of interest here, Asim gave the right response on that with regard to Muslim belief.

Another reason is that, apart from protecting the women under Shariah in marraige if she is a Muslim, mothers are the ones who spend the most time in raising children, and a father would want his children not only to take his name, but his faith, family, clan, tribe what have you.

This is different from Jewish tradition where a child is Jewish if the mother is Jewish regardless if the father is not. I understand that some Jewish groups - Reform Jews? are saying a child can be considered Jewish if either parent is Jewish.

Personally, as a woman I thought it to be patriachial that woman, when married, is expected to subsume her identity to a man. But who am I to complain when even in the west, once a woman got married, she takes on her husband's surname and have all her children take on her husband's surname too.

Actually, under the Shariah, a Muslim woman is not expected to take on her husband's name when she married him. She keeps her own property and her husband can never touch them without her prior consent. Basically, for a married Muslim woman, what is hers is hers, but what is her husband's is also hers.

And last but best for me, as a woman and mother, when a Muslim dies and is given the last prayers by an imam, he is called by his/her name followed by daughter or son of his/her mother's name.

For example, if your mother's name is Clarissa, you would be call forth: Norrie son of Clarissa.

No mention of father in death. After all, your mother gave birth to you, so it is only right that your mother be remembered in your death too:).

All the best
J

instead of another predictable and boring descent into misundertood and misinformed assaults on peoples misconceptions about islam-

does anyone have anything intelligent or of value to add to the topic itself?

norrie- it's possible that you're just trying to be expressive, but i dont know if you realize how deeply insulting your statement is.

so, AS a muslim woman, my wishes are respected and i don't consider myself "chattel"

its not in my book either

so you think there is a universally recognized natural right for all people to marry whomever they choose?

even in vermont norrie- there will be subtle and intangible barriers to people marrying whomever they choose.

actually in islam you will find the 'modern' idea of mixed marriages old news- while im seriously wondering how many neighbors you have that are in this category- we are still dealing with the problems of interfaith marriages and the problems they can entail-

if anything is a fairytale i think it is the idea that the rest of the world is living in some atmosphere where social and economic and racial and religious considerations are eradicated thus allowing this natural desire to marry whom one will to be recognized and societally sanctioned.

i think your characterization (besides being demeaning) was overly dramatic and not based on any real understanding of the depths and subtleties involved- but a quick knee jerk reaction to a tiny bit of information-

a fish and a bird may fall in love, but where will they live?
is NOT an islamic expression.

someday in the future, when we have realized the islamic ideal of true equality regarding the rights of people- maybe this statement will make sense.

but for now- i think its wishful thinking on your part (and its certainly a noble wish- ill certainly grant you that) that in all civilized societies in the world, people follow their natural inclinations, break all bonds of any social constrictions- and marry whomever they wish.
i think if you could peer into the hearts of the people in your town you'd find a few people who for various reasons didnt pursue romances that were outside their social conventions.

well, i wis it were true too-

but you cant invent an idealized and not realized example- and then compare it to severely demeaning caricature- and then decide the fantasy is superior.

which i believe is what you've done with your comparison of WHAT YOU IMAGINE the state of muslimahs- and WHAT YOU IMAGINE the state of the worlds civilized societies.

peace- i will just assume you didnt realize at the time how disrespectful to all muslim women everywhere your expression was.

Cow chapter verse 221 says *Do not marry unbelieving(non-muslim) women,until they believe(convert to islam)*
Reasonable Person says *the man is obligated to insure that his wife be able to practice her religion freely(!)* Completely *Fairy Tales*.
*Alice in Wonderland*.Could you please to write any islamic country such as ?

And,could you please to show any islamic land where there is *no compulsion in religion* ?
Iran,Saudi,Malasia,Indonesia,Pakistan,Egypt,Hamasistan or Afghanistan ??

You can not change *the reality* by writing *fairy tales*.
There is no place for islam in the *contemporary world*.
Islam is the *cult of desert*,nothing else.
Islam is wrong and you know it very well.
Azar was the servent of Abraham,not his father.
Trinity is NOT *Father,Son,Mary*.

Yes,if people always did the right things...,first of all,you should read the right things.

Peace(whatever it means in Dar ul Harb).

Victoria,

You made a nice try, but I remained unconvinced.

Asim wrote:

"Islam can not guarantee the rights of a Muslim woman marrying a xtian/jew because it would not be fair to force a xtian/jewish husband to adhere to Sahria in which he does not believe in the first place- ..."

So a Muslim woman can't exercise her free will and marry a non-Muslim because then Islam can't guarantee her rights ?! What about her natural right to marry the person of her choice, a right universally recognized in all civilized societies?

So her wishes count for nothing and the Muslim woman is nothing more than a chattel-property of Islam?

Not in my book.

Regards.

So you support these Catholic Doctors and their rights to conscience?

Even in countries where the law permits abortion for rape victims, women who seek the operation can encounter a wall of obstruction. In Peru, a 17-year-old girl discovered that her foetus had anencephaly - meaning that it was going to be born without a brain - but a doctor refused to allow her access to an abortion. She was compelled to give birth and breastfeed the child for four days before its died.

In the Sante Fe province of Argentina, a social worker told the organisation Human Rights Watch about a woman who went into hospital after having an unsafe abortion and was bleeding badly. "A doctor started to examine her, and when he realised, he threw down his instruments and said: 'This is an abortion. You go ahead and die'."

Jihadist,

Thanks for your explication of the personal-status religious and legal issues current in Malaysia. It's very interesting and, I gather, a hopeful situation from my point of view.

Another topic:

I've been instinctively drawn to support the candidacy of Barack Obama for President. Last evening my family and I met him at an outdoor reception in our Vermont town.

Barack's an amazing person: superbly intelligent and articulate, incredibly energetic, relaxed, informal, responsive to his audience, and passionate to accomplish good things. We all think he's wonderful and really hope he can beat the odds and become President.

I amuse myself at these events by trying to spot the Secret Service agents present, who last night didn't seem to take many steps to make themselves invisible. In big cities some are probably well disguised, but not in our village at a small invitation-only event. Still, I counted an even dozen.

I've been seeing presidential candidates since 1952, when I went into Boston to see Adlai Stevenson, my then hero, for which I was much ridiculed at my boys prep school.

Barack is the best I've seen, along with Jack Kennedy.

Can you believe that Republicans are already mocking his middle name, Hussein, and trying to compose ditties rhyming Osama and Obama?

Are you back home in Malaysia now?

Best wishes.

ps i should have disclaimed this- i am not a scholar but just giving my humble opinion-

no norrie, the reasoning isnt based on the woman being subordinate to the man. when a muslim man marries a christian or jewish woman- the man is obligated to insure that his wife be able to practice her religion freely, which may entail transportation to her synogogue or church- it may also encompass the husband paying for whatever religious education she desires.

it is not a "reasoning".

when the Prophet(pbuh) went from mecca to medina- there were women who became muslim and went with the community- it was revealed in the qu'ran- so the reasoning process is conjecture added after the revelation.

also it is true that most women in those times went to live with the family of the husband (not saying good or bad, just a fact) and a muslim women in a christian or jewish family might lose her own identity- while islam guarantees the autonomy and respect allowed for a christian or jewish woman to practice her religion- this tolerance is one sided.

there are no christian or jewish proscriptions to protect the religious rights of a muslim woman in this situation.

butterfly- yes, it would be adult and reasonable for men and women to flesh these issues out before marriage- but most people dont have a clear idea of their own needs and identity and as we have probably experienced ourselves- when we are in that first flush- we often agree to things without thinking of the implications down the road, and when problems pop up- then the blame game starts etc...

i have been an advocate for pre-marital counseling at the mosque- specifically and epsecially for non-muslim women who arent really aware of their rights, and what theyre getting into!

and having had many times when i had to be an arbitrator in sessions where the husband and wife wanted to split up- (this is also from the qu'ran) communication and patience are key of course.

one of the complaints i had was that the advice given , almost rotely and offhand to any 'female' complaint, was for the woman to be more patient.

what?
and.. WHAT??

the muslim community has to bear more responsibility in the counseling of its members-
and to take greater care of its community.
but thats another issue.

o, and butterfly, before my husband and i married, we had a contract of sorts drawn up elaborating on issues of possible contention.

it is a perfectly islamic practice to do so.

so to reiterate- it's not a matter of not trusting non-muslim men to accord the same respect to the woman- its just a fact that there are no protecting guides to insure this.

if people always did the right thing, we wouldnt have any need to discuss it- but the fact is- people do not and also people change their minds.

Asim,

Thank you for your post. I doubt that I can accept the reasoning you set forth, but I appreciate your bringing it forward.

Isn't the reasoning premised on the idea that the woman is subordinate to and dependent on the man, whatever their respective religions?

That I can't accept.

Best wishes.

ASIM:

**A Muslim male can marry a xtian/jewish women because Islam can guarantee her rights under Islamic law-Sharia-to which a Muslim husband is committed and obligated to adhere to; but Islam can not guarantee the rights of a Muslim woman marrying a xtian/jew because it would not be fair to force a xtian/jewish husband to adhere to Sahria in which he does not believe in the first place- based on the teachings of Quran that:” No compulsion in religion."**

Shouldn't that sort of thing be negotiated between the husband and wife before they ever marry? If either expects the other to convert against her/his will, then call off the engagement.
My husband and I follow different spiritual paths. Although there are areas where our beliefs overlap (just as there are between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism), there are also areas where our paths diverge widely (just as there are between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). We enjoy those parts of the journey we are able to travel together, and give each other the needed space for those parts we must travel alone. Neither of us would dream of demanding that the other convert.
Why would non-Muslim men who love Muslim women not be trusted to do the same thing?

Norrie Hoyt,
Let me explain the logic behind why a Muslim woman does not marry a non-Muslim man:essentially as an attitude of tolerance and avoid imposing Islamic doctrine on non Muslims.

A Muslim male can marry a xtian/jewish women because Islam can guarantee her rights under Islamic law-Sharia-to which a Muslim husband is committed and obligated to adhere to; but Islam can not guarantee the rights of a Muslim woman marrying a xtian/jew because it would not be fair to force a xtian/jewish husband to adhere to Sahria in which he does not believe in the first place- based on the teachings of Quran that:” No compulsion in religion."

Clearly this shows how tolerant and sensitive Islam is to the beliefs of non-Muslims.

I refer you to Mohammad Asad's book "The Road To Mecca," who was a young journalist-an Austrian jew-travelling on a train in the 1920's from Egypt to Palestine, when he overheard a conversation between a Muslim cleric and a xtian Priest on the same topic-and where the Muslim cleric outlined the reasoning sanctioning the marriage of a Muslim male to a xtian/jew but not the other way around. This incident was the catalyst behind Mohammad Asad's conversion to Islam, who became a diplomat-Pakistan's UN ambassador-and a scholar of Islam with many publications.

Ted Baines,
U are sick and undignified.

There's a cute biblical parable where Jesus holds up a coin with Cesaer's picture on it and states something to the effect of "Give Cesaer that which is Cesaer's. Give God that which is God's." There is an underlying theme in this parable that one's obligations to church and state are separate and different.

People in health-related helping professions are trained in Biomedical Ethics. They are trained in what standard of care means, and about their obligations as a care provider. They know, well in advance of finishing their educations, about personal conflicts they may experience. And they receive help in resolving those conflicts.

Most folks who practice any sort of health care in communities with a variety of spiritual cultures or in a culture that is different from their own learn a sort of spiritual flexibility that allows him or her to function as a professional while inwardly retaining their faith identity.

What concerns me most about refering patients in order to live out one's personal spiritual values is not how easily this can be arranged in larger cities with many care provider options. Rather, it is how such a solution realistically impacts providers and patients in smaller, more homogenous communities.

If you live in an area where almost all providers share a certain religious orientation, and you need care they feel morally obligated to decline providing then you as a patient may face a number of dilemmas.

1) Where do I find the care I need and want?
2) How do I find that care without ostracizing myself from the religious mainstream in my community?
3) How do I become informed about all my options?
4) How do I ensure the best continuity of care?
5) What happens if my needed care is time sensitive and an alternative care provider can only be arranged with a delay?
6) How far must I travel, or what other unnecessary inconveniences must I face to receive my needed care due to my initial provider's decision to observe his personal spirituality over giving me the health care I require?

In providing health care, it is about the patient, and not the provider. Nearly all medical decisions are made with the patients' best interests in mind, not the providers'. I don't mind a provider opting out of something controversial if an alternative access to care is readily available. But there are going to be times where this is not the case, or where the alternative access is clearly not in the patient's best interests or the alternative access is not comparable. What should be done in *those* cases?

I notice there is a lot of pressure on the health professions to adapt the practice of health care to the spiritual orientations of providers.

I think there is a point where patients should begin to expect the same consideration from the religions of our doctors and other providers.

Hello, hello,

I have to explain and justify myself? What I do and why? I am not quite the issue here, but never mind, some inquiring minds wants to know, eh? :)

Halozcel

Thanks for the reminder on the markets. Have already covered them before the present, belated and expected "jitters" in the global markets before taking off. No financial bloodbath for me. Am picking up market "bargains" now by "remote-control" decisions from Mecca and Medina. The US and some other market do need "corrections". Pray I don't stop giving out loans as a banker, prudent and needed loans :)

Mr. Norrie Hoyt

Current Islamic financial services and banking always has always its critics. Including Pakistani and Bangladeshi
small businessmen who give out loans, and a form of "letters of credit" from people from one country to another for centuries now. Those are the fellows we should check on where the monies actually go - from whom, to whom and for what purpose. They are also losing financial services business to the more efficient banks.

Of course there are also some activists and conservative Muslim politicians in Pakistan and Bangladesh who said Islamic banking is a "sham". But we are leaving them behind. Islamic banking is growing or Citibank, HSBC, etc won't be falling all over themselves to get into it and to dominate the market. They tried to lure those involved in and have experience in Islamic banking for years now, inlcuding me with attractive packages. I don't need their financial incentives and baits. Have more than enough of my own already.

London, Singapore and Zurich, not exactly Muslim cities, are also falling all over themselves to position themselves as world centres for Islamic banking to compete with, well, Dubai and Kuala Lumpur. Now Jakarta is getting interested too.

Islamic banking and financial services, including insurance, is a very competitive business now, and constantly being fine-tuned on Shariah compliance. Efforts are made to streamline this internationally for all Islamic banking and financial services. Of course, no one is forcing Muslims to take up Islamic banking and financial services. They have a choice, and do take up conventional banking and financial services. Islamic banking and financial services is an option, an alternative in the marketplace for Muslims if they want it. It is growing still and may yet have needed market corrections.

I don't really go after Mid-East billionaires until and unless we have done a most thorough checks on their portfolios, investments and charities. Most of my clients are Southeast Asian Muslims and non-Muslims. Including those in Europe and North America. Who says Southeast Asian Muslims don't have money? Even heard of the Brunei Royal family too?

As for Lina Joy, I did tell you about the mess of the Shariah courts of Malaysia and the controversial "counselling" given by the religious departments of Malaysian states.

You will recall that in Malaysia, the head of religion (Islam) is the Paramount Ruler or King, like Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church of England. Hence the issue of whether Malaysia is a secular or Islamic state has been going on since its independence in 1957.

The Malaysian Constitution says Islam is the "official religion" of Malaysia, not Malaysia is an Islamic state. Every time a general election year comes up, the Malay-Muslim based political parties and verious Muslim politicians with holier than thou platforms makes the assertion that Malaysia is an Islamic state and all arguments broke loose again. And again. And again.

As for Lina Joy, that is an old story by now and the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Like a ripe pimple that blows up in the open on questions of apostasy in Malaysia. Many other such cases before, and pending cases of mistreatment and injustice by the Shariah courts too. Always two steps forward, one step back. Or one step forward and two steps back sometimes if we fall asleep.

Unlike other Malaysians on this issue, I do go by the Malaysian Constitution to pressure the Shariah courts in showing up the ridiculousness, incompetence, bad judgement and inhumane actions of the Shariah court systems.

The Constitution guaranteed freedom of belief etc, but is quite specific that matters pertaining to Islam and Muslims (and who is defined as a Muslim), Muslim marraige, divorce, child support (collectively know as Islamic Family Law) is under the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts of Malaysia.

All 13 Malaysian states and the Federal territories have rights on matters of Islamic religion over the Federal government. All have their own Muftis, Shariah court systems and rulings that varies from state to state, and which the states jealously guard as matters on Islamic religion and land are the only two areas where states have independence from the Federal government. The Federal government can propose, but the states can accept or reject.

Legally, in line with the Malaysian Constitution, the High court judges were right in saying it is for the Shariah courts to decide. I welcome that decision for now it forces all the Shariah court system of the Malaysian states to clean up on the question of apostasy and matters related to Islamic family law.

There is the National Fatwa Council of Malaysia comprising of Muftis of all states. They are now looking, belatedly (but better late than never) into the various states' Shariah judgements and actions on Muslim apostates, and how they treat former Muslims.

Being an apostate or declaring oneself and apostate is not the problem of the civil courts of Malaysia. It is the purview of the Shariah courts of Malaysia in line with their Constitutional right, and to be responsible to abide by the Malaysian Constitution that takes precedence in the nation's law. The Shariah courts are the ones causing problems on this. The pressure and onus of responsibilities is on them now.

The Malaysian media are reporting on them, the NGOs are highligting on the Shariah courts and religious deparments of various states into looking again at their judgements, motives and actions. The last time I spoke to a Federal based Muslim religious expert before going "on the road",he said the state Shariah courts and religious departments got rather defensive and are having several meetings among themselves to look at the consequences of what is done in the Shariah courts as well as the "counselling centres" set up by the state religious departments.

We'll just have to sit out a bit and see what they come up with first before "jumping in" and "ambushing" them again. It's a fact that it is not the best and brightest Muslims that seek to pursue full time Islamic theology or jurisprudence as a career, to become Muftis, kadis (judges) etc. The secular professions are more attractive and prestigious. Those in the Shariah courts and Islamic religious departments are too aware of this fact.

Personally, I do not find them "evil" or "stupid", but were just applying what they know and had learn from Middle Eastern/South Asian universities/schools - be it Al Azhar, or the Deobandi schools of Salafist/Wahhabi Islam. Some Muftis, kadis and senior religious department officers also seem not to be able to control their more "enthusiastic" and sadistic subordinates.

They have to be, and can be engaged. No one wants to be thought of as "oafs", and to lose the respect of the Muslim community, especially as they are supposed to be entrusted with determining and applying Islamic laws and justice. What I noticed of some of them is that, they are also fearful - scared of losing credibility, respect, being ignored by, or laughed at by the Muslim community. Getting them out from under their coconut shells is quite hard sometimes if they go under voluntarily as a defence mechanism.

Best regards
J

i try not to be redundant and repost, but i just reread this one i posted on the main board and feel it illustrates a real situation where the lines of religious conviction and medical practice can become blurred and how subtle the disagreements (and imposing judgements on others as well as misreading intentions too) can be-

i try to be eager to have suspicion for the good intentions of people-

Physicians' Obligations
Are physicians' primary obligations to their patients or their religious convictions?
Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on August 8, 2007 11:07 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (74)
victoria :
as a person of left of center political leanings and an american muslim - for those who loudly demand that muslims identify themselves as "moderate" (a term imposed on me, and one im not very fond of) i guess that i consdier myself a reasonable person (although religiously practicing and active and perfectly proud of that too)
truly it gets tiring defining and redefining myself for the sake of others comfort levels- but its a courtesy and effort i extend.

i had a conversation with an orthopaedic surgeon (and practicing muslim) about a patient of his. (it was a male here, although not all doctors are male, lest we forget)

he stated that a woman with a fractured spine who was diagnosed as incurable and would never walk again, along with her family, prayed constantly and incredibly amazingly miraculously was able to walk again!

he then went on to say that he used this example in his consultations with all of his patients.
he stated that he did this to give hope to all his patients.

i was appalled.

he is a very good man, but maybe not mature a doctor or person as he may become.

we argued into the night about ethics and faith and bedside manners etc-

my position was that in telling his patients this- some may be given unrealistic expectations as to their own process- and also be set up for a sharp disappointment because this womans case was, well- unique in its rareness.

but that wasnt my basic disagreement, just a practical possibility.

my real discomfiture was to me the slippery level of ultimate culpability.

i feel that in such a case, the onus is put unfairly upon the patient to effect their own miraculous "cure".
the implication being that the other 99% of the patients are spiritually insufficient or undeserving of such a grace.
when in fact they are the norm.

and the repsonsibilty of the efficacy of the surgeon himself is conveniently not a factor in the equation- how can he help it if his patients are too impure to be healed?

i was really outraged that he actually imagined this was a constructive and valid way to practice his art.

not to mention the fact that the added stress to one who is struggling to heal physically- and the emotional pressure a patient would put upon themself- and just plain old blaming the victim-
would actually be a hindrance to their healing process.

and in his rush to accept the cure as miraculous- what scientific information might have been unexplored to explain from a physiological standpoint her recovery, and what other future sufferer might be helped through good old observation and investigation?

well, its not as interesting as abortion or as titillating as other issues, but it is an example of the subtleties of medical ethics and religion intertwining.

his decision making process will continue to draw from his identity as a religious person-

it is not possible to expect him to separate himself into fractured elements of his personality to be the best surgeon he could be-

it is part and parcel of who he is-

to my thinking, it was a way for him to cleanly absolve himself of his deep responsibility to his patients cure.

perhaps it is a coping mechanism also and not a character weakness- but a way of dealing constantly with hopeless situations.

maybe it was he that needed the hope.

Allahuallum. Only the God knows.

peace

Almaden -- Actually, I have a big problem with conservative Christians, and Muslims for that matter, trying to impose their values on the society at large.

My comments were made under the assumption that we have a health care system much as we have -- where most procedures are readily available to most people (well, at least those who can afford them... but that's another issue.) They were also made with the assumption that a doctor would exercise some self-determination in his/her profession. That is, I assumed that a doctor who, say, is morally opposed to abortion would not willingly go to work for a clinic where abortions are regularly performed, or for a hospital where he/she might be required to perform abortions as a part of the normal daily schedule. Thus, it seems to me that intelligent choices on the part of a doctor eliminates most of the conflict to begin with. Similarly, as Victoria pointed out, patients seeking an abortion are not likely to go to the local Catholic services center, knowing the church's stand on abortions.

I acknowledge that there is a discrepancy in the availability of abortion between different areas of the country, and I have participated in efforts to keep clinics open in southern states where there are far fewer centers than in other states. Again, I see that as a different issue than the question of whether an individual doctor ought to be required to perform abortions. There are many unevenesses in our health care system that need to be addressed.

Viejita, Victoria, and Paganplace,

I am totally in agreement that a patient should not be denied services that are legal, and that their health is their own concern. That to me was an obvious no-brainer, as pagan says. The issue only arises if the patient doesn't want treatment the doctor feels is necessary/important, or when the patient is unable to make decisions for themselves. In which cases, no one should have the right to force a person to take treatments they don't want, and the family and/or holders of medical power of attorney should be the decision makers, not the doctors.

extreme hypothetical anecdotal scenarios aside-

the real issue isnt really about religion at all, but about doctors who abuse the power and trust conferred upon them and repay that trust with arrogance-

sometimes the almost infallible status people attribute to doctors- humans with low ethical standards and easily flattered egos who are susceptible to these praises begin to believe it themselves-

its not even a reflection on doctors per se- (although in these fractured red and blue times people are drawing their lines in the sand) but any person who claims to have some healing 'power' or 'special' ability that separates them from the common respect for other people that we as humans strive for.

(the interesting phenomena ive noticed on these boards is that the 'doctors' are invariably in these scenarios portrayed as male!
females can also be doctors, and can also have a corrupted sense of their own self-importance)

but "doctor knows best!" seems to give rise to many emotional and unrelated reactions.

for instance, if i went to a reiki healer who had a christian bent- and there are such people- it wouldnt be her religious affiliation that would be of importance- but her ability.

if she insisted that we pray in the name of Jesus(ata) in the middle of the treatment- and it made me uncomfortable- or i felt that my treatment was tainted by this invocation invalidated or prevented my treatment- i would use the faculty of conversation as i take part of the responsibilty for my health and treatment by being an active participant in my health-

not a passive victimized puppet.

extreme and hypothetical scenarios can go both ways-
for instance, in the case of rape resulting in pregnancy, a fairly rare occurance but often cited-
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

is 4.7%... considering that 86% of doctors claim no religious conflicts in their practice, and the fact that in many rape cases there are often attendant counselors, police, and various hospital personnel that the victim encounters in their journey towards treatment- one can see it is not often isolated women who have one doctor only to seek treatment.

not to minimize these cases- but put them more in perspective- when the issue is to discuss the physicians themselves- emotional statements like- women who are impregnated through rape being denied the morning after pill - as the example is often given- the social nature of the crime ususally involves more than a doctor and patient exclusively.

but even in such rare and sad cases- the issue again- is not religion but the fragile and questionable psychological state of any doctor who would make such an erroneous and controlling decision for her patient.

it becomes and should stay a question of a doctors personal medical ethics- which has a solid and strong credo of its own.

doctors in hospital settings such as the ones described above, do not function in a vacuum of absolute power and infallibilty as has been suggested.
and if there is a family around to be bankrupted or disrupted o extension of life support, then the decision is clearly not in the doctors hands.

and i would suggest that unless you are having sex with your doctor, no doctor "imposes" a pregnancy on you- you impose it on yourself.

what is suggested here is that doctors somehow become dispassionate and removed emotionally and spiritually from their own decision making base-
moral legislation works both ways-

we cannot suggest that the thought police will be there to dictate the consciences of doctors any more than we would allow it to any free human.

some doctors do indicate their philosophies and refusal to perform some procedures.

some do not, but how do we legislate conscience?

these are not little known and obscure issues- are you pro-life? is a pretty easy question to ask-
it seems obvious that anyone seeking services that some have conflicting issues surrounding them would do at least this minimum of research into their own care.

doctors also have their own mechanisms of oversight and are answerable to their ethical behavior.

if they werent, we wouldnt even know about these cases except through elaborate hearsay, but we dont- we cite cases that have been questioned by patients-

well, enough of that, possibly norrie could give us some more insight on how legislation might be effected, but personally, as i want to protect my own autonomy and freedom of conscience- i have to allow others to have the same, even if their views are diametrically opposed to my own.
peace

"The question of whether the doctor's obligations outweigh his/her morality or religious faith would seem to pit the freedom of conscience of the doctor against the freedom of conscience of the patient."

Seems to, until you consider that the doctor is not there for his conscience. The patient has no choice. The doctor has a profession to live up to.

" Particularly in the case of end of life decisions, it raises the question of whose conscience should win out if the doctor and patient disagree about the morality of a particular course of action."

Patient's. No-brainer.

Not the doctor's place.

While a doctor needn't perform procedures he doesn't want to do, this does not entitle him to deceive, disinform, or deny these options to the patient.

Period.

If a doctor decides I am a Witch from his Bible who 'shall not be suffered to live' ...he has no right to impose this 'conscience' on me or my family.

If he thinks I should be put to death and take the blame for my own stoning, he has no right to impose his own 'conscience'

If I don't particularly care to be kept in a mockery of life on expensive machines with an irreparable brain, to distress and bankrupt my family for the sake of his twisted idea of 'life,' ...he has no right to impose his 'conscience.'

If he thinks I'm a 'loose woman' for wanting contraception after being raped, ...he has no right to impose his 'conscience.'

If he thinks he should use his position to impose a pregnancy on me cause his 'conscience' says so, he has no right.

Pretty simple, here.

Doctors are being paid for services, and professional standards and ethics. Not to be confesors or missionaries or to judge my morality.

Anything else is deceit and, really, abuse.

They don't have to do anything they don't want to.

They can go get another job with their wealth.

Patients who are supposed to trust them to be doctors often don't have that choice.

The problem we find here in America is not about the 'religious rights' of those who construe it to be a violation of *their* rights not to be allowed to take decisions and even information out of patients' hands... It's about the religious rights of those deceived or coerced or compelled.

Simply put, ...claiming your religion demands that you coerce others religiously does not mean it's 'oppression' for others to say *no.*

Simply put, radical Christians are whining for the right to *coerce and deceive* and to *violate* professional ethics, *because they want to.*

They don't have that right.

JIHADIST,

Since you've been away from home, you may not have seen this:

FROM ALJAZERRA.COM, August 11th 2007:

Malaysia convert's marriage illegal

Islamic authorities in Malaysia have ordered a Muslim woman who was detained for four months after she married a Hindu to live separately from her husband.

Officials in Selangor state told Najeera Farvinli Mohamed Jalali, an ethnic Indian, that her marriage was illegal under Islam, the couple's lawyer said on Saturday.

Under Malaysian law, Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims.

"Her husband's family rang us up to say she has been released about three weeks ago," Karpal Singh, the lawyer said.

He has argued in the past that Jalali's detention was illegal because no detention order was served on her.

Magendran Sababathy, her husband, had hired Karpal to fight for his wife's freedom.

Islamic religious police raided the couple's house in April and arrested her, on the charge of "illegally cohabiting" with a Hindu and for failing to produce any relevant marriage documents.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a human rights lawyer, has questioned the decision to separate Jalali from her husband.

"I don't think there's a legal basis for them to do it," he said on Saturday.

Counselling ordered

Meanwhile, a religious court has ordered another Malaysian woman who is trying to renounce Islam to undergo three months of counselling.

"If she is saying that
she is not a Muslim, the constitution guarantees her right to say that and nobody can order her to do anything other than that"
-Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, human rights lawyer

According to the New Straits Times newspaper, Siti Fatimah, 38, claims she originally converted from Buddhism to Islam in 1998 because she wanted to marry an Iranian man and never truly practiced Islam.

Siti, an ethnic Chinese whose original name was Tan Ean Huang, filed a legal petition formally renouncing Islam in July 2006 after her marriage broke down.

On Friday, the Islamic Sharia high court in northern Penang state directed Siti to undergo guidance and counselling under the state's Islamic religious department for three months.

The court is scheduled to rule on Siti's petition on December 3, after a report from the religious department detailing the progress of the counselling sessions.

Conflicting values

Just over half of Malaysia's 26 million people are Malays, who are Muslims by definition.

Ethnic Chinese and Indians form sizeable minorities and mainly practice either Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism.

Last month, a 29-year-old woman said she was mentally tortured by Islamic religious police during her six-month detention for renouncing Islam in favour of the Hindu religion.

While in May, Lina Joy, a Christian convert, lost a battle in Malaysia's highest court to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card.

In delivering the judgment, the chief judge had said that the issue of apostasy was related to Islamic law, and civil courts could not intervene.

Related:
Tougher law for Malaysia converts
(27 Jun 2007)
Malaysia rejects conversion appeal
(30 May 2007)

Victoria,

Thanks for your support!

Medicine and faith should not mix. According to the hadiths, Allah's Apostle, Muhammad, used to prescribe camel urine mixed with milk of milch camels as medicine. Very dangerous medicine.

Anonymous,

As I said in my post, "Being as how.." is an illiterate [though colorful] American colloquialism."

Jihadist is a student of many languages and loves to learn American phrases and meanings that are new to her. [See her post about my helping her understand the non-literal meaning of "There are no atheists in the foxholes."]

She [and you] may be interested in this:

"Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

"being, being as, being as how, being that

"All these locutions, as in Being [being as, being as how, being that] you’re in town, why don’t we have dinner? are dialectal, from Eastern New England, South Midland, or Southern regions.

"Standard English, especially written, requires that you avoid them except in Conversational and Informal use within one of those areas. Because, since, and inasmuch as are Standard and will serve instead."

Regards.

It's easy to impose your moral scruples on others when you can afford to be an independent practitioner like an MD.

Suppose you believe in the sacredness of cattle and then take a job at McDonald's, but refuse to cook or serve Big Macs. How many milliseconds before the manager tells you to go take a hike?

Or imagine you get a newspaper delivery route and then tell your customers "I can't deliver your Sunday papers because that's the day of rest. You want one, you can drive over to the Kwikee-Mart and get it from that heathen Apu. But if you do, God will curse you."

For most of us, if our principles dictate that we mustn't do certain things, then reality dictates that we choose a career that doesn't involve being expected to do those things. Pretty simple isn't it? One of life's multitude of tough choices, gee whiz.

Only a few have the luxury of being able to use their job as a platform for proselytizing. How wonderful for them, to be able to stand firm for their faith at no personal cost.

Our problem in the United States is that religious fundamentalists and their acolytes on the Supreme
Court are trying to take away our legal right to have
the kind of medical treatment our conditions and
circumstances require. Sounds like Missus Taylor
is OK with patients' right to opt out of treatment on
religious grounds, but also OK will religious zealots
to impose their values on the general population and
the professional medical personnel who serve it. This
is not OK with the majority of Americans.

anonymous- norries comment in question was lowercase and bracketed by parentheses next to all uppercase letters- as he identified it HIMSELF as illiterate american colloquiallism-
you're only recealing your lack of awareness bny pointing out what he already pointed out himself.

whew

so anon- foe lived in the desert for 11 years in a sensory deprived atmosphere- and his gift to a sensually rich world is, "there is nothing to seek?"
are you sure it wasnt a travel brochure?

and his other contribution was to negate what other prophets have shared?
not exactly the most brilliantly conceived idea, o wait, not an idea, just a reaction to existing ideas.

and the interior doctrine is an elitist dogma?

were all very enlightened by your astute lack of perceptive powers.

id post as anonymous too if i were you

o, its not bad english.
fantabulous is bad english.
its bad grammar.

Anon.
Interesting story. I'm not sure how it relates to the current subject, though. Maybe it is a warning that we should always doubt the self-appointed experts, whether religious, medical or political.

For the record, I like the way Norrie uses English.

Norrie Hoyt

"Being as how" is just bad english.All you needed was "As".

Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) in his Historical and Critical Dictionary,tells of a Chinese teacher called Foe who had gone into the desert at the age of nineteen and studied there until he was thirty.
He then emerged to instruct men,and he represented himself as a god.
At 79 and near death,he confessed it was time to tell the truth. "It is",he said,"that there is nothing to seek,nor anything to put ones hopes on,except the nothingness and the vacuum that is the principle of all things".
Listen to his description of the "false exterior doctrine";

It consists in teaching 1.that there is a real difference between good and evil,justice and injustice;
2.that there is another life in which one will be punished or rewarded for what one will do in this one;
3.that happiness can be attained by means of thirty-two figures and eight qualities;
4.that Foe is a deity and the savior of mankind,that he was born out of love of them...that he expiated their sins,and by this expiation they will obtain salvation after death,and will be reborn happier in another world.

by contrast,the interior doctrine "that is never revealed to the common people because they have to be kept in their place by the fear of hell",is that there is nothing; "that our first parents came forth from this vacuum and that they returned there after death".

JIHADIST,

YOU MUST READ THIS ARTICLE IN TODAY'S NY TIMES:

"ISLAMIC FINANCE AND ITS CRITICS"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/09trust.html?em&ex=1186891200&en=2961fe8c80059fd3&ei=5087%0A

IT'S ABOUT SAUDI BILLIONAIRES AND SAUDI TRILLIONAIRE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND TERRORISM.

BEING AS HOW [illiterate American colloquialism] YOU ARE, OR HAVE JUST BEEN, IN SAUDI, I THINK YOU'LL FIND IT INTERESTING AND MAYBE RELEVANT TO YOUR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.

Regards.

Dear Jihadist,

Jakarta,Singapore Straits,Nikkei,NYSE and FTSE collapsed.Please be careful.
Sharp sell-off may continue today session.Have a good luck.

Islamic banking and now *islamic curing*.Very good.
*It is our right to be foolish*.Super word.

Assalam mualaikum Imam Pamela Taylor

Your essay succinctly captures the general approach taken by the Muslim ulema, medical establishment and the patient's and their family rights on the question of life saving medical remedies and procedures.

By the way, which faith don't allow for needed abortion or organ transplants etc to be undertaken to save the life of the living?

Peace be with you

J

P.S. For Shiite Muslims out there, I call Pamela Taylor an Imam as I'm a Sunni Muslim and taking into consideration she led prayers and give sermons following it. We have female imams leading women in prayers and giving sermons in Indonesia and Malaysia. Some mosques are allowing female members of the ulema to give sermons after Maghrib and Isha prayers, but not to lead male/female prayers as yet. So, no clarifications needed on the Imam and/or Mahdi by Shiite defination. I know.