الله يكون في عونك ويعوضك بالخير

والله يوفقك ويرزقك
17-04-1427 هـ, 11:04 صباحاً
 
حبوبه خليهم يولون

انتي للحين ما وقفتي هالشي؟؟

اذا تبين توقفينهم عند حدهم خلي اتسليم وجهاً لوجه هني البنت ما بتقدر تقولج حرف واحد

لان عضلاتهم ما يطلعونها الا من ورى شاشة الكمبيوتر صدقيني

ولا تعورين راسج ويا هاليهال !!
17-04-1427 هـ, 11:05 صباحاً
 
الله يعينج الغاليه

إنزين إنتي لازم تستلمين عنهم المبلغ أول

الله يهديهم
17-04-1427 هـ, 11:06 صباحاً
 
تسلمون الغاليات و الله ما تقصرون ...
17-04-1427 هـ, 01:21 مساءً
 
السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
يقول صلوات ربي و سلامه عليه " من غشنا ليس منا"
انا انسانة انخدعت فى سباركل و الادلة موجودة عندى و بحطها الحين
انا انسانة جامعية يعنى بتخرج عقب شهر بالضبط ضروفى الخاصة ما سمحتلى اكمل كل البروجيكات و كانت سباركل عارضة خدماتها .... هى من البداية ما انكر حسن اسلوبها و تعاملها الرائع ... المهم طرشت لى كل معلومات البحث و تقول انها اشتغلت عليه .... من يومين طرشتلى اياه .... و قسم بالله العظيم و اى بنت شاطرة فى الانجيلزى بس تاخذ كل أول جملة من البحث و تبحث فى قوقل بيطلعلها الويب سايت اللى هى ناقلة منه كلمة كلمة .... و يوم قلت لسباركل الاخت قال و الله فى استاذ معدللها اياه ... يعنى بالعقل لو الاستاذ معدللها اياه هل بينقل كلمة كلمة ... شوفوا بروحكم... ثانى شى اصلا البحث مش كامل كله تقول الاخت انى انا لازم بس اكتب راييه بس ها مش المطلوب
و ها البحث و اشوفوه و احكموا عليه ... انا مب ياهل عشان هى تقص عليه و ها مستقبلى و انا اول مرة اطلب مساعدة من حد يعنى حطو ا عمركم مكانى .... لوسلمت البحث للمدرسة كنت انا برع الجامعة ... عشان سبب و الله ما يستاهل
و السموحة و الحين اشوفوا البحث و خذوا كل جملة و حطوها فى قوقل و اشوفوا بعيونكم ...
اللى ما افهمه كيف الناس كل همها الفلوس و بس عنبوه و ين نحن عايششين و الله الله يرحم ابونا زايد ما اعتقد فى يوم يبا يشوف بناته اللى رباهن على حسن الاخلاق يكونون بها الصورة ... و انا ما ظلمت الاخت سباركل ... حتى يوم واجهيتها و قالت الها قالت لى و الله مب لازم تدفعين ... المسألة مش مسألة مبلغ المسألة مسألة مبدّأ و أخلاق .. اللى حز فى خاطرى انه كيف الناس صارت جى و الله راسي داييير ... الحمد الله انى سويت البحث فى يوم يعنى تخيلوا كيف كانت حالتى ... و توووووووووووووووووبة مووول ما بخلى حد يسويلى شغلى ....
المهم اشفوا و احكموا بروحكم ها البحث كله ... و اللى تباه اطرشى و بطرشلها اياه و اشوف بعيونها الهنتين ..... الله انى بلغت اللهم فشهد

سبحانك اللهم و بحمدك اشهد ان لا اله الا الله و ان محمد رسول الله استغفرك و اتوب اليك
The debate between Universalism and relativism is an issue that seems will not really finalized and hence demands immediate attention and explanation The conflict between the two different ideologies of human rights “universalism and cultural relativism” is one of the most significant issues of the past twenty years. The central question in the debate is whether the norms of human rights are universal in nature or relative to cultural/religious/national backgrounds. The Universalists perceive human rights as self-evident universal norms, rooted in the concept of "dignity" of the human person (Donnelly, 1989). The underlying presumption is that human rights exist "objectively", independent of culture, religion, ideology or value systems. However, a proper justification for the existence of such "objective" norms of human rights is not clearly established yet.
The theory of cultural/ethical relativity originated in the studies of Anthropology and dates back to the beginning of this century. It was in a way a response to the cultural evolutionist school, which carried racist and Eurocentric notions of progress, keeping the Western civilization at the highest stage of development (Renteln, 1990). The relativists in Anthropology countered the evolutionists and argued that morality' and immorality', normality' and abnormality' differ in every society as they are socially constructed.
Universalism:-
Universalism as a concept came into prominence after World War II (Morsink, 1999; Ife, 2001; Reichert, 2003a). With the implementation of the Declaration of universal human rights, countries from all over the world discussed the values that became the basis for the human rights. The World War II consequences have led to a belief that it will be a great harm in letting individual countries or nations to define and pursue their own values. A good example for this what Germany had showed the world how vicious an individual culture could become without superseding check when established racial purity laws that led to the extermination of lesser human beings. This cultural relativism, meaning that one country/culture can determine its own values, regardless of human dignity and life, can have horrendous results (Morsingk, 1999; Wronka, 1998).
The basic concept of human rights is that all individual in the universe have the same rights, no matter where they live, what is their religion or to what group they belong. This is what strengthens the notion of universalism which emphasized that more primordial cultures will eventually have the same system of law and rights as western cultures. Every individual has a claim to enjoyment of human rights, wherever the individual resides (Reichert & McCormick, 1998; Reichert, 2003a). For instance, humans have the rights to have food and acceptable health care. It is possible that some of the countries don’t have sufficient resources to provide food and health care for every one. But still they need to provide a frame work for ensuring the delivery of these rights even if local cultures consider the procurement of these items a matter for the individual.

Universalism is not without criticism. Critics charge that universalism perpetuates colonialist practices, complaining that one group assumes superiority over the other and bases values, ethics, power on that assumption (Ife, 2001; Economist, 2001; Harris-Short, 2003). Similarly, criticism focuses on the ‘‘imperialistic’’ nature of human rights: ‘‘Human rights doctrine is now so powerful, but also so unthinkingly imperialist in its claim to universality, that it has exposed itself to serious intellectual attack. These challenges have risen important questions about whether human rights norms deserve the authority they have acquired: whether their claims to universality are justified or whether they are just another cunning exercise in Western moral imperialism’’ (Ignatieff, 2001b, p. 102).
In determining the universal basis of human rights, the universalist arguments are generally against "tradition" and strongly favored "modernity", the former being an "illiberal", pre-industrial society and the latter being liberal, industrial society (Donnelly, 1989: Cranston, 1983).Liberalism and industrialism have therefore become the indicators of modernity, which, it is argued, is a prerequisite for the establishment of a proper human rights regime (Donnelly, 1989). The norm of tradition as something "backward looking" and modernity as "forward looking" has serious consequences. The arguments of the universalists have often ignored the variety of cultural and social structures in the third world and their inner dynamics of change and assume that it is a unchanging, archaic, colossal society which needs external attributes for any meaningful transformation.
While criticism of universalism presents valid issues, human rights do not originate without considerable input by diverse nations. Human rights are internationally agreed values, standards or rules regulating the conduct of states toward their own citizens and toward non-citizens. Human rights are, in the words of the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations (United Nations, 1948). These rules, which states have imposed upon themselves, serve to restrict the freedom of states to act toward their entire population: citizen as well as non citizen, men as well as women, whites and non whites, believers and non believers, married persons and the unmarried, hetero***uals as well as homo***uals. This situation is different from the past, when states, or rather their princes, were absolute sovereigns who could treat their subjects in any way they wanted. Nowadays, human beings have rights: human rights (Baehr, 2001). A long process of civilization has imposed norms to restrain human behavior, and these norms of restraint evolved in parallel fashion across different cultures (Turner, 2002; Elias, 2000). Without some common agreements about appropriate conduct across social strata and between different societies, social life would not be possible.

Universalism implies that some moral requirements are the same for everyone, in the mean while, it does not imply that we all have a moral requirement to be the same, or that we have any moral requirement that discourages cultural diversity (Tilley, 2000). Accordingly, the universal concept of human rights faces a genuine problem —the local religious, cultural and legal rules. In which basis any country to accept rules that have been invented by others that includes members that often appear to have little in common with other members? The response goes back to the background leading to the creation of the United Nations and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Genocide, poverty, unemployment, colonization, and other afflictions all led to a search for a better way, one that would at least help prevent or ease these afflictions. No single nation could do that. Only by working together and agreeing on a universal set of principles could all nations obtain some success in creating a better world.

Cultural Relativism:-
"The theory of cultural relativism has been greatly misunderstood and unfairly dismissed not only by its critics but also by its proponents... Although the most controversial aspect of relativism tends to be the extent to which relativists must tolerate intolerance, the crux of the argument should be whether or not it is possible to establish cross-cultural universals." (Renteln, 1990).
Cultural relativism is based on the idea that there are no objective standards by which others can be judged. Relativism was introduced by the sophist Protagoras. He rejected objective truth by saying in so many words, later quoted by Plato: “The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me and the way things appear to you, in that way they exist for you." (Ross, K. “Relativism.” http://www.firesan.com/relative.htm).

Cultural relativism became eminence as a tool to contradict colonialism (Roth Pierpont, 2004). In the 1800s, the main concept of the colonialism was one culture is superior to others. In the meanwhile, anthropologists in the 1900s had questioned this superiority and accentuate that each culture has it is own value. The points of view in the cultural relativism are all equally valid as well as any truth is relative and it belongs either to the individual or his/her culture. All religious, political and ethical beliefs are truths related to the identity of the culture of the individual or society. Cultural relativism is appropriate in some aspects. Language, food, clothing, art, and architecture differ from one culture to another, and it is desirable for the relative differences to remain (Pasamonik, 2004). Also, ‘‘cultural relativism maintains that there is an irreducible diversity among cultures because each culture is a unique whole with parts so intertwined that non of them can be understood or evaluated without reference to the other parts and to the cultural whole, the so-called pattern of culture’’ (Lawson, 1998).

When discussing human rights, the phrase “cultural relativism” often causes a lot of confusion. What does this phrase mean?. Simply speaking, cultural relativism refers to a point of view that all cultures are equal and universal values become secondary when examining cultural norms. No outside value is superior that of the local culture. For example, if the local culture allows female genital mutilation, then the human right prohibiting cruel or degrading treatment should not prevent the genital mutilation. If the culture accepts genital mutilation, then no outside principle should overrule the cultural norm. When an uninsured American does not receive adequate medical treatment for an illness because he or she has insufficient income, the local culture and legal system accepts that result – even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to adequate medical care. This is another example of cultural relativism.

Further more, two problems are in the relativist argument. The first problem is that cultures are appeared mutually exclusive, non-interactive, and dormant. In the contrary, cultures have largely been mutually sharing, interactive and dynamic.This is particularly evident in multi-cultural societies like India. For instance, the Islamic and Hindu cultures did not remain mutually exclusive during the last millennium. Rather they influenced each other -- Sufism, which has emerged as a confluence point of both the cultures during the Moghul period, is a striking example. In fact, interaction of cultures has been an important source of internal critique and change. (An-Na'im, Abdullahi A, 1987).
The second problem is that the leaders of the third world have claimed the human righrs have been apart of their ancient cultures. For sure that all societies have had systems of rights and obligations, although their terminology may have been different. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that the ancient and medieval societies were based on the principle of equality. For instance, in India the "obligations" were not of individuals to individuals but of a caste (community) to another caste and these obligations were hierarchical in nature, depending upon the status of the caste, which was based on the "purity and pollution" principle. The universalist critique -- that if such obligations are asserted as "human rights" in the contemporary sense, it contributes to more confusion than clarification -- has therefore some validity (Ithaca 1989).
Then, is there an alternative way for the creation of genuine human rights in the highly multi-cultural twenty-first century? In the dead-lock between the "hegemonic" individualism and "resistant" cultural diversity, there seem to be some rays of hope. First is a process of refinement of individualism of "man" to "human", i.e., the feminist "deconstruction" of mainstream liberal conceptions of human rights. The feminist critique has highlighted the fact that despite being "universal", human rights are still largely in many ways rights of man (Binion, 1995; Charlesworth, 1992). These attempts are in a way helping to reconceptualize individualism in a more gender sensitive manner.
The second process is what Renteln calls finding "cross-cultural universals", i.e., bridging the positive contributions of individualism and collectivity. A cross-cultural universal is, according to Renteln, "a value which is shared by all cultures in the world" (Renteln, 1990: 71). Renteln argues that cultural relativity is not, contrary to the beliefs of both classical relativists and universalists, opposed to universalism per se. However, other than cross-cultural universals 'there are no genuine universals. (1990: 76 and 140)
To sum up, the tension between universality vs relativity is more complex and fundamental than what the universalist critiques have acknowledged. While their critique of third world "cultures" from a universalist (individualist) stand point has valuable insights, they have a tendency to ignore or underplay the complexity of collectivist traditions and their positive contributions. The moot question, then, is not whether there are universals or not, but whether individualism is the only foundation of universal human rights norms. The challenge before the human rights movement and scholarship is to evolve methods whereby the positive contributions of individualist and collectivist strands of thinking are amalgamated to build human rights norms that fully appreciate the plurality and diversity of cultures.
References:-
1. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, Vol. 22, No. 1, April 2006, pp. 23–36
2. An-Nai’im, A. (1995). Conclusion. Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest for
Consensus, 427–428.
3. Harris-Short, S. (2003). International human rights law: imperialist, inept and ineffective? Cultural relativism and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(1), 130–152.
4. Ife, J. (2001). Human rights and social work: towards rights based practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Morsink, J. (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: origins, drafting, and intent. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
6. Pasamonik, B. (2004). The paradoxes of tolerance. Social Studies, 95(5), 206–211.
7. Reichert, E. (2003a). Social work and human rights: a foundation for policy and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Tilley, J. (2000). Cultural relativism. Human Rights Quarterly, 22(2),
9. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. (1993). UN Gabor, World Conf. on Human Rights, 40th Sess., 22nd plen. mtg., part 1, 5 UN Doc A/Conf.157/24, reprinted in 32 I.L.M. 1661 (1993).
10. Wronka, J. (1998). Human rights and social policy in the 21st century: a history of the idea of human rights and comparison of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights with United States Federal and State Constitutions (Rev., ed.). Langham, MD: University Press of America.
11. Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12. http://www.firesan.com/relative.htm
13. Miller, K. “Human Rights of Women in Iran: the Universalist Approach and the Relativist Response.” http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/win96/miller.html
14. http://library.thinkquest.org
15. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk
16. Renteln, Alison D., International Human Rights: Universalism Versus Relativism, London: Sage, 1990.
17. http://www.suite101.com
17-04-1427 هـ, 04:51 مساءً
 


الساعة الآن 01:26 .