Al-`Afif. An old name in reference to the `Afif mosque, that has a tomb named after Sheikh `Afif.
Al-Imam abu-Hanifa al-Na`man bin Thabet. Preacher, theologian, editor (muhaqqiq?) and mujtahid (legal interpretations based on theological sources). Born 80 A.H. Refused to be a judge out of his piety during the reign of the `Abbasid al-Mansour. Died in 150 A.H.
Al-Qaymariyye (neighborhood in the old city). A name attributed to the Greater Qaimariyye School founded in 650 A.H. by Prince Nasir al-Din al-Qaymari in the Ayyubid period. The area was named after him due to its fame.
Related posts:
- Trivia through Damascene Street Signs
- Street Signs Pt. 6
- Street Signs Pt. 2
- Street Signs Pt. 5
- Street Signs Pt. 3
I like that named streets in Syria have another sign explaining who is the street named for, realy nice
Posted by Ali | July 30, 2008, 2:12 amYes, that makes up for a brutal totalitarian regime that murders their political opposition, contravenes international law and sponsors dozens of terrorist groups.
Posted by Anonymous | July 30, 2008, 8:44 amStifling free speech — globally
A coalition of Islamic states is using the United Nations to enact international ‘anti-defamation’ rules
The trend has rights advocates worried for numerous reasons, beginning with the language used. If the notion of “defaming” a religion sounds a little unfamiliar, that’s because it is a major departure from the traditional understanding of what defamation means. Defamation laws traditionally protect individual people from being materially harmed by the dissemination of falsehoods. But “defamation of religions” is not about protecting individual believers from damage to their reputations caused by false statements — but rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of the followers. While a traditional defence in a defamation lawsuit is that the accused was merely telling the truth, religions by definition present competing claims on the truth, and one person’s religious truth is easily another’s apostasy. “Truth” is no defence in such cases. The subjective perception of insult is what matters, and what puts the whole approach on a collision course with the human rights regime — especially in countries with an official state religion.
Posted by Anonymous | July 30, 2008, 8:54 amPower quote:
“The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies.” By doing so, she said, the approach “violates the very foundations of the human rights tradition by protecting ideas rather than the individuals who hold ideas.”
Posted by Anonymous | July 30, 2008, 8:55 amThanks anonymous. There is an easy solution to this. The Islamic states should set up a corporation and call it Islam.
Since westerners like you are befuddled about why people could be damaged by defamation against a religion, but seem to value legal traditions that give rights to sue to artificial entities like corporations, both could be pleased by this simple solution.
I think Islamic states are hypocritical for granting rights against defamation to both religion (collective) AND individuals — especially since individuals tend to have no other rights.
Will
Posted by Will | July 31, 2008, 7:03 amWhat you just said is an insult to Atheism. There is no such thing as religion, you nitwit. It is all in people’s heads. When you die, that’s it. I demand reparations!
What is your contact information? I will sue Kabob for defamation of reason.
Posted by Anonymous | July 31, 2008, 7:34 am