Suchergebnisse

The legend of Sergius Bahira in the light of Christian apologetics vis-a-vis Islam -- Muslim-Christian confrontation and counterhistory -- The Islamic Bahira -- The apocalypse of Bahira -- Bahira's teachings -- Breaking crosses -- God's word and his spirit-Bahira's christology -- Protection and recognition-Bahira and Q 5:82 -- The physics of heaven -- The Qur'an against Islam -- The legend outside the legend -- Bahira the source -- Bahira the heretic -- Bahira the false witness -- Bahira the victim -- Jewish traditions about Bahira -- Bahira the forecaster -- Concluding discussion -- Texts and translations -- The recensions and the manuscript tradition -- Some characteristics of the recensions -- Textual genealogy -- Manuscripts -- Conspectus siglorum -- Methodological considerations -- The East-Syrian recension -- The West-Syrian recension -- The short Arabic recension -- The long Arabic recension

"Dionysius Bar Ṣalībī's Treatise against the Jews offers rare and illuminating insight into Christian-Jewish-Muslim relations during the Crusader era, not from the perspective of western Crusaders, but from the frequently neglected viewpoint of the Oriental Orthodox tradition. Bar Ṣalībī, a distinguished hierarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, lived in a turbulent time of heightened tensions in the Levant. The Treatise against the Jews, which forms part of the corpus of Syriac polemical works, investigates the prejudices of Christians and Jews towards each other during the 12 century AD.This edition and translation is based on all the available manuscripts of the text, accompanied by extensive introductions, notes and commentary as well as studies of its place in the field of Syriac Patristic polemics"--

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.

The article analyses the notes, which were prepared by provisional investigation commissions formed by the Seimas, in which it was suggested that the Seimas should either agree or disagree on the abolition of the immunity of a Member of the Seimas. In the opinion of the author, an analysis of these notes permits to assert that these notes often have essential drawbacks: the notes contain insufficient arguments following which the commission substantiates its proposal that the Seimas should not give its consent to hold a Member of the Seimas criminally liable, to arrest him or restrict he freedom otherwise; at times such notes do not contain any such arguments at all; sometimes the commissions exceed the powers granted to them and undertake functions which are not characteristic of such commissions. The Constitution establishes the immunity of a Member of the Seimas not for the purpose that a Member of the Seimas who committed a crime could avoid criminal liability, but that he would not be held criminally liable in the absence of legal grounds, that he would not be persecuted for political or other similar reasons, and that no influence (which is prohibited by the Constitution) would be exerted on him due to his activity in the capacity of a Member of the Seimas.