Ownership of Property in Islamic Law

Ownership of Property in Islamic Law Abstract Property ownership has been highly debated in recent years especially when it comes to women. The case of Muslim women has been alarming in certain Islamic countries because though women are allowed to own property some traditions when put together with some Islamic Laws are highly restricting womens ownership property. Property in this light includes land, house and other tangible properties. This paper based on illustrating the different sources of property acquisition which has been hindered due to, in most case deliberate confusion of Islamic laws and customary laws which had restricted the ownership of property by Muslim women in different Islamic regions. INTRODUCTION Women in many countries still face inequality at home, in their communities and the society at large. They are usually left in the background because of state laws, customary laws and religious beliefs. This inequality also affects their right of property ownership. The rights of women to own, inherit, manage and dispose of property whether tangible or intangible has been minimized by individuals, customs and laws in many countries of the world today. These women who most often constitutes a greater population of the country, are not give the opportunity to own land, houses, cars, bank account, cattle, crops and many other forms of property. Womens right to property most often depends on the relationship they share with men around them. Religion too has also had an impact on the ownership of property by women when put together with customary beliefs. These two when put together in extreme cases greatly limits the right of a women to own property. Religion has been interpreted to the detriment of the Islamic woman but to the advantage of the Islamic man. These several interpretation of Islam under different customary laws has reduced the rights of women to own property. This paper therefore brings out the role of Muslim religion on the ownership of property by Muslim women. Examine what the Islamic religion says about women owning property and what is the real situation at hand. That is how the Islamic religion is integrated with tradition and state law and its impact on the ownership of property by Muslim women in Muslim regions. The Role of Islam in Property Ownership amongst Muslim Women Historically, the Quran acknowledges the right of women to own property. The Quran explains important post held by women during the period of the prophet which made them to acquire property. In general terms the Islamic law allows women to hold, use and dispose of property but when you go into details the terms become very complicated and this therefore restrict these women. The Islamic law acknowledges the fact that a woman should be given what she earns and which can be a mans when she willingly transfers it to the man. But when we consider the fact that Muslim women are suppose to be very reserve, their right of property ownership which can be gained only when they are exposed is restricted. To own a property in any form means you need to manage this property and this management cannot be adequately established in the private space you need the public space. The following analyses discuss the different ways in which property can be acquired but which women are being restricted in societies where Islam and tradition are being practiced in extremes. Inheritance In Islam the man is considered the head of the family and has the right to own property. Inheritance which is a form of property ownership highly favors the man. Though women have the right to inherit property of a deceased member of their family, their own share is usually half of what the man inherits. Though women have the right to inherit from their father, it is usually two shares for men and one for women. They believe that women do not have any obligation to take care of the family as the men do, therefore the men should be given more. In most traditional Islamic countries the combination of customary and Islamic law against women concerning this issue makes women to be totally refused the right of property ownership. For them since these women do not take care of the family, they should not be given the right to own any property. Also in most law courts like in Northern Nigeria where Islam is practiced, the right of women to inherit property is denied by some judges though Is lam accepts these rights. Most often, the inheritance is done in theory and not in practices. The women are just told that they have been assigned this portion of property which in most cases is never given to them. Property ownership is consider as a mans business since women are considered to be dependent and weak and needs the support of a man to handle property issues. Annelies Moors (1995) also explains that while in Islamic law women have inheritance rights, these then are generally more limited than those of men. This she explains that, looking into the shares of the widows and daughters, the male preference is usually very clear. This is because, in the case where the husband dies it is difficult for the woman to inherit the husbands property because she can get married to another man or better still she is suppose to stay under the protection of the men in the husbands family be it her sons or the husbands brothers. According to Islam, wives are entitled to one-eighth of the property of their husband s when the deceased husbands have children and to one-fourth if they are childless while daughters on the other hand are entitled to only half the share of their brothers share. Also, when there is an only daughter she gets half of the deceased fathers property and the rest goes to the fathers male relatives while an only son gets the entire property of the deceased father showing a biased against these women. This is because the property the woman with children owns goes to her children especially if they are boys and if she does not get married, she is given less and most often refused because she can be remarried. The case of a childless woman is worst because she is left with nothing as property even if she contributed in the acquisition of the property. Also, owning a property means giving the woman an upper hand and changing her private space to a public space. A woman is suppose to be very reserve in her private space and not exposed by owning property to the public space which is considered a mans space. This perception is different with urban and rural Muslim women. Annelies Moors (1995), discusses that although the women in both area knew their rights of property ownership, some those in the urban areas accepted their own share of the estate but most in the rural areas stayed retrained from acquiring their own shares. This I believe was the result of their customary law in those rural areas which prohibited them. Education Education is a form of property acquisition because when you are educated you are exposed to issues of knowing your rights. In most parts of Africa where Islam is practiced, the number of girls going to school has been relatively low compared to the Christian areas. The people do not see the need of educating the girl child since she is believed to be the property of the man. Education is not a priority but early marriages are encouraged. Going to school is meant for the boys who will eventually become a family head and needs education and property to take care of the family. This is very common with Muslims especially in the rural areas who strongly believe in their customary and Islamic laws. Most of them are not aware of any state law or international human rights laws or even the Islamic which give them the right to own property. Vanessa Maher (1974), explains that Berbers in Morocco equivalent of seclusion, and preserving family honor intact in keeping their girl child at home s ince schools are considered as a corrupting influence and giving access to the public sphere making education very irrelevant. Work According to the Islamic law, women are allowed to work but this is usually under certain circumstances and under very strict conditions. In many Islamic countries, job opportunities for women and men are not the same. They are not given equal opportunities because women are highly restricted from public life. A woman is not supposed to work alone with a man because according to the Quran they might be tempted. A woman is not supposed to do any job that will expose her honor of womanhood but she is supposed to remain modest. Islam generally recommends that women stay at home and take care of the home. When Vanessa Maher carried out her field work on Women and Property in morocco in 1974, she pointed out that women do not work for wages because their participation in the public sphere is considered immoral. This alone prohibits these women from doing anything that will make them acquire property. Also the man has is oblarged according to Islam to uphold his obligation of maintaining t he woman. The husband is responsible for maintaining his wife and the entire family not the other way round even when the wife has the means, so this also discourages Muslim women from working. According to the Islamic law, women are allowed to work but this is usually under certain circumstances and under very strict conditions. In many Islamic countries, job opportunities for women and men are not the same. They are not given equal opportunities because women are highly restricted from public life. A woman is not supposed to work alone with a man because according to the Quran they might be tempted. A woman is not supposed to do any job that will expose her honor of womanhood but she is supposed to remain modest. Islam generally recommends that women stay at home and take care of the home. When Vanessa Maher carried out her field work on Women and Property in morocco in 1974, she pointed out that women do not work for wages because their participation in the public sphere is considered immoral. This alone prohibits these women from doing anything that will make them acquire property. Also the man has is oblarged according to Islam to uphold his obligation of maintaining t he woman. The husband is responsible for maintaining his wife and the entire family not the other way round even when the wife has the means, so this also discourages Muslim women from working. Even the dower and maintenance gift in which the woman is entitled to be given to her for marriage is only owned by her in theory and not in practice. Annelies Moors 1995 when she carried out her research in Palestine explained that younger village women rarely expressed an interest in selling their gold (which was their dower) to buy productive property; they would rather invest it in their husband and his house. This is because when she gets married to the man this property automatically goes back to the man since he is supposed to control the familys resources. At times the dower and maintenance gift are orally given through promises and the woman never receives it. The dower is gradually losing its value because most contemporary Muslim women will prefer their husbands to invest his resources in the up keep of the family. They do not really care about the dower especially in the urban areas. More so, in case of divorce since the wife does not have any right of property compensation or sharing all what was given to her as dower is taken by the husband. This is because, during marriage the properties she contributes to the family are not regarded as hers but the husbands property. Annelies Moors (1995), in her research in Palestine explains that women no longer sell their gold dower to buy productive property because independent female ownership of such property clashes with their definition as dependent wives. They instead use it to invest in their families therefore reducing their access to property. CONCLUSION Though efforts are being made to enhance property ownership by Muslim women, this issue is more complicated in the rural areas since there are strong customary laws which restrict women. When these customary laws are put together with the Islamic laws, these women are completely isolated in the ownership of property. This is because there is a deliberate confusion between Islamic laws and customary law by men which suppress a womans right of owning property making the customary law to predominate. Actual control of property has still remained in hands of the men. Womens less right of property according to Islamic thoughts is seen to be compensated with the fact that they are under the custody of the men. Property is considered as power, and the more property you own the more powerful you are. REFERENCES DUPRET, B., BERGER, M., Al-ZWAINI, L. (Eds.), Legal Pluralism in the Arab World, The Hague, Kluwer International, 1999 ROSEN, L. (2000): The Justice of Islam. Comparative Perspectives on Islamic Law and Society, Oxford U.P Vanessa Maher (1974); Women and Property in Morocco: The Changing Relation to the Process of Social Stratification in the Middle Atlas. Cambridge University Press. Annelies Moors (1995); Women Property and Islam: Palestinian Experience 1920-1990. Cambridge Middle East Ngonà © Diop Tine and Mohamadou Sy (2003): Women and Land in Africa: A case Study from Senegal.

African American and Their Rights Essay

Since slavery, African Americans have gone through a lot to reach their current state. In the early 20th century, African Americans faced discrimination, isolation, and were segregated according to their skin color. It started when Europeans brought the first Africans to America, and continued throughout the Civil War. The American government made some changes in policies. A variety of leaders shaped the successful struggle toward black equality in America (Bowles, 2011). Ever since slavery begun, African Americans have been determined to end segregation, discrimination, and isolation. Activists such as, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, and others, joined together to put an end to segregation, discrimination, and isolation to attain civil rights and equality. Slavery had changed dramatically in the late 1600s. About this time the slave trade to American colonies also began increasing to meet the demand for cheap labor. Traders sold slaves to the Northern colonies, but English and other European immigrants satisfied the demand for labor there (Echerd, 2009). Slaves in America came from western and central Africa. African tribes sometimes enslaved those defeated in intertribal wars and sold their captives to European slave traders. The tribes raided villages to obtain slaves to trade for European goods. Slave traders had even offered the Africans guns and other goods for the slaves. Slaves lived a rough, hard life. Cheap labor was a huge part of their lives. They had to work from sunrise to sunset. The work consisted of clearing land, tended to fields of tobacco, rice, and vegetables. They also performed many other tasks that had helped make plantations almost completely self-sufficient. No slaves saw any money for their tasks that they had performed, but they did receive food, clothing, and shelter. The slaves had resided in small one-room huts, which had no windows and the floors were all dirt. Most slaves accepted their living condition, however, they knew no other way of life (Koehler, 2009). However, white Southerners regained control of state governments in the South during the late 1870s, however, and reversed most of the previous gains made by former slaves. For example: segregation. What is segregation? According to Webster’s Dictionary, to segregate is defined as to separate or set apart from others; isolate or to require, often with force, the separation of a specific racial, religious, or other group from the body of society. Segregation has been a part of our American heritage, almost from the moment slaves arrived on the shores of the New World (Bowles, 2011). In 17th century Virginia, the theocratic government feared that racial mixing between freed and enslaved blacks and white indentured servants would become a means to usurp government power. They passed laws in which the color line was clearly defined in any criminal punishments. By treating whites and blacks separately and unequally, these Virginian leaders set up a system of white supremacy that would become an essential component of American slavery. Separation and segregation was the order of the day, with African Americans being forced to ride in separate railroad cars, have their own hotels and courthouses, and even get water out of their own drinking fountains. Their children could not attend the same schools with the White children. To further push the color-line, they then added in segregation with the Jim Crow Laws. This is mainly because the Whites were considered to be superior, and hence were thought to deserve better schools with better facilities. African Americans on the other hand were considered inferior, and hence their children attended low-quality schools that lacked adequate facilities (Sitkoff & Franklin, 2008). The Northern States, which had grew and prospered during the war, believed the former slaves to be equal as any other person. The Southern States, still angry over the loss of the war and their firm belief in White superiority, took a different approach. They created and enforced what were known as the Black Codes. These were legislations passed in Southern states to control labor, migration and other activities of the freed slaves. Black Codes allowed legal marriage, property ownership and limited access to the court systems. It prohibited them from testifying against whites, serving on juries or militias, voting and publicly expressing any form of legal concerns ( www. history. com). Any former slave that did not sign yearly labor contract with the plantation owners could be arrested and hired out. The Black codes in short allowed for the continued and legal discrimination against the former slaves (www. history. com). Congress quickly responded to these laws in 1866 and seized the initiative in remaking the south. Republicans wanted to ensure that with the remaking the south, freed blacks were made viable members of society. But the strong southern legislatures finally gave in; in 1868 they repealed most of the laws that discriminated against blacks. Things were starting to look up. But by 1877 Democratic parties regained their power of the south and ended reconstruction. In 1882, southern states passed Jim Crow laws that enforced strict segregation between blacks and whites and limited African-American civil rights. This was devastating to the blacks. After all the strides they made were reversed. From holding political offices, the right to vote, and participating as equal members of society was changed. The south gradually reinstated the racially discriminatory laws. The two main goals they wanted these laws to achieve: disenfranchisement and segregation. To take away the power that the blacks had gained, the Democratic Party began to stop Blacks from voting. There were many ways to stop blacks from voting. Some of these things were poll tax, which were fees were charged at voting booths and were expensive for most blacks, and the literacy test. Since teaching blacks were illegal, most adult blacks were former slaves and illiterate. And the other goal, segregation, causes the democrats to create laws that segregated the schools and public facilities. The Northern States, which had grew and prospered during the war, believed the former slaves to be equal as any other person. The Southern States, still angry over the loss of the war and their firm belief in White superiority, took a different approach. They created and enforced what were known as the Black Codes. These were legislations passed in Southern states to control labor, migration and other activities of the freed slaves. Black Codes allowed legal marriage, property ownership and limited access to the court systems. It prohibited them from testifying against whites, serving on juries or militias, voting and publicly expressing any form of legal concerns. Any former slave that did not sign yearly labor contract with the plantation owners could be arrested and hired out. The Black codes in short allowed for the continued and legal discrimination against the former slaves. Just like some African Americans activists fought this segregation, some Whites had some groups of their own to carry the segregation on and on. The Ku Klux Klan was one of them. The Ku Klux Klan, Knights of White Camellia, and other terrorists murdered thousands of blacks and some whites to prevent them from voting and participating in public life. The KKK was founded in 1865 to 1866. They directed their violence towards black landowners, politicians, and community leaders. They also did this to people who supported Republicans or racial equalities (Anti-Defamation League, 2012). After the abolishment of slavery in the U. S. the KKK formed. They hated blacks and would commit crimes against them. Murders, hangings, and lynches are just some of the crimes against the blacks (www. kkk. bz, n. d. ). The Ku Klux Klan claims to be just defending their people like other races do. What is a lynching? Lynching is a form of punishment with no legal permission. Most times lynching occurred against African Americans by hanging them. This was very popular during the Gilded Age after the American Civil War when African Americans were freed from slavery. Many White men would use lynching against Black men for being in a mixed relationship with a White woman. However, because lynching had no legal basis, it was thought to have been a tool that was used against freed slaves that had achieved financial stability and authority in order to remain a White-dominated nation. Lynching was most likely performed by White Supremacy groups like the KKK. Lynching was done by hanging or shooting, or both. However, many were of a more hideous nature. Burning at the stake, maiming, dismemberment, castration, and other brutal methods of physical torture are all part of a lynching. Lynching therefore was a cruel combination of racism and sadism, which was utilized primarily to sustain the caste system in the South. Many white people believed that Negroes could only be controlled by fear. To them, lynching was seen as the most effective means of control. Defending your people is one thing, but to torture another human being is inhuman. The KKK has several stories out there today on how they treated the blacks, whether they did anything wrong or not. For instance, a Louisiana woman is in critical condition after she was set on fire, resulting in burns on roughly 60 percent of her body, and her car appears to have had racial slurs written on it at the time of her attack (Mach, n. d. ). They had even gone as far as church bombings. The KKK launched a bomb into a church during a Sunday service, which left four innocent teenage girls dead. The men responsible hid behind the cloak of secrecy, intimidation and the white robes of the oldest terrorist organization in the world, the Ku Klux Klan (Gado, n. d. ). Therefore, until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racial discrimination is an issue that was not seriously tackled. The act was a successful result of most wide-ranging civil rights legislation and Civil Rights Movements for close to a century (Finkelman, 2009). The act declared discrimination on the basis of color, race, ethnicity, religion, and many other aspects as unconstitutional. During the critical years from 1954 to 1963, a variety of leaders with different backgrounds, such as lawyers from the NAACP, women sitting on buses, ministers from southern black churches, militants from black power organizations, and youth from colleges had shaped the successful struggle toward black equality in America (Bowles, 2011). In 1896, the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision established that â€Å"separate but equal† facilities for whites and blacks were allowable under the U. S. Constitution. Local governmental officials could designate separate public facilities like drinking fountains, restrooms, and schools. Even courthouses often had separate Bibles according to the defendant’s race. The problem was that separate usually meant unequal, and segregation subverted the freedom of every African American (Sundquist, 1993). Now, it is time for the African- Americans to fight back. The incident that made them want to make a difference was the Rosa Park bus ride. After a long day of work on December 1, 1955, Parks, feet hurt, looked forward to sitting on the bus for her ride home. At the time, there was a city ordinance stating that African Americans had to give up their seats on a train or bus if a white man asked for them. When a white man approached Parks and told her that he wanted her seat, she simply said no. Although she acted as a private citizen, her response was as an informed, committed member of the NAACP movement. The bus driver had asked Parks to move. When she did not, the bus driver said, â€Å"Look, woman, I told you I wanted the seat. Are you going to stand up? † When Parks again said no, the driver threatened, â€Å"If you don’t stand up, I’m going to have you arrested. † She gave no reply but at the next stop, Rosa was arrested (Garrow, 2004). A pastor known as Martin Luther King Jr., organized a boycott, the Montgomery bus boycott. King Jr. took this to a higher level and maintained and organized the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which coordinated similar bus boycotts in other cities. Shortly after the boycott, King had found a bomb on his porch. King went to Birmingham, Alabama, where he continued his nonviolent protests and marches. However, the police authorized force to disband King’s followers by using electric cattle prods, tear gas, and fire hoses (Bowles, 2011). King was arrested with the others, but upon his release from jail he went to Washington, D. C., where he and demonstrators met at the National Mall and addressed them with his famous â€Å"We Shall Overcome† speech on August 23, 1963. King’s words at the capital that day were a defining moment of the Civil Rights movement. Other demonstrations and civil disobedience campaigns sought to increase African-American voter registration and win better jobs. Malcolm X actively promoted the Black Muslim cause. Even after speaking about non-violence and wanting peace, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. The civil rights movement dramatically increased participation of African- American voters in both the South and the North today. By the mid-70s some 4000 African-Americans have been elected to political office at all levels of government. Qualified African-Americans now have a wider range of opportunities than ever before. Whether you are White or African-American, each group has faced its own peculiar challenges on its approach to democracy (Rappaport, 2001). This racism is wrong and unconstitutional. The 13th Amendment is ratified, abolishing slavery, which some people still went against it. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to the former slaves and forbade states from denying any person life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. The 14th Amendment also guaranteed equal protection of the law for all citizens. The 15th Amendment barred states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race, color, or previous servitude (Hertz, 2009). In a perfect world, everyone would be equal. The color of one’s skin, religious beliefs or sexual preference would mean nothing. We would accept everyone for whom and what they are. We would rejoice in the differences between each other instead of belittling, hating and discriminating against those differences. We don’t however live in a perfect world. We live in a world filled with distrust and hate. If we don’t know or understand it in our society, then it is wrong. It will be discriminated against in one form or another. We as a country have made major strides in overcoming racism, however we still have far to go. In conclusion, African Americans faced isolation, discrimination, and segregation during the post-construction period. Racial discrimination was also prevalent in the military where back soldiers were considered inferior to white soldiers and hence poorly trained and equipped. The issue of racial discrimination, isolation and segregation was not seriously tackled until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. Civil rights activists such as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. organized the famous 1963 protest in Washington that eventually forced President John Kennedy to pass the Act. It is therefore, clear that the journey to end isolation, discrimination, and segregation to attain equality and civil rights has been hard but worthwhile. ? References Bowles, M. (2011). American History 1865- Present End of Isolation. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint. Retrieved at: https://content. ashford. edu/books/AUHIS204. 11. 2 Finkelman, P. (2009) Encyclopedia of African American history, 1896-present, Madison Avenue, New York: Oxford University Press Rappaport, D. (2001). Martin’s Big Words: The Life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Sitkoff, H. , & Franklin, J. (2008) The Struggle for Black equality. Hill and Wang Publication http://www. adl. org/learn/ext_us/kkk/default. asp? LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk http://www. history. com/topics/black-codes Civil Rights Act of 1964 http://www. ourdocuments. gov/doc. php? doc=97&page=transcript.

Altering Stop and Frisk Essay

You are walking down an alley way, trying to take the quickest route home to make it to dinner on time. Suddenly, a cop stops you, telling you to drop your belongings and put your hands in the air. You are shocked, scared, and confused, while being stripped of your dignity. Stop and Frisk arose around the mid 90’s. It was a means of stopping crime before it occurs. However, the reason behind the sudden stops was categorized as racially discriminatory, and offensive. In March 1999, problems with stop and frisk began to sprout, due to it causing the death of an unarmed African Immigrant, Amadou Bailo Diallo. This heart breaking tragedy opened the eyes of many, and bit by bit people began to perceive the racial profiling that transpired when it came to stop and frisk. If we want the discrimination to stop, however still allowing police officers to fulfill their duty then there are some flaws that must be adjusted. The mayor of the city should lay down restrictions on officer’s freedom and stabilize their training; to ensure peoples boundaries. Not only should the mayor take part in changing the system of stop and frisk, but our communities as well. In our communities, and neighborhoods with high crime rates, more charity events should be held explaining the consequences of violence, giving people a feel of what can happen if they begin or continue to explore criminal activities. If these changes towards stop and frisk are not constructed, then New York, the tri-state area, and the nation, will continue to fight back without hesitation. Stop and Frisk needs to have restrictions, the officers executing it, have an excessive amount of rights. The idea of an officer randomly pulling an individual to the side and searching them, stripping them of innocence, simply because they â€Å"fit the description† is absurd! Especially since, this is after all, the United States of America, a nation of justice and freedom. Having restrictions on stop and frisk would limit police officers power of freely stopping people based on bias suspicions. I suggest ‘restrictions’ meaning, a warrant. Just as one needs a warrant to search your house, or to arrest you, there should be one that gives officers a clearance to search your body. This of course, would mean that an officer cannot simply search you on sight; they would need to report their discoveries to headquarters and wait for an electronic authorization to conduct their search, while still keeping their eyes on you, maintaining low  profile. In charge to make sure that this change is permitted, as well as funded would be the mayor, since titled â€Å"head of the city†. However, the person administering the warrant would be police deputy (whom possesses great experience with criminals, knowing how a criminal looks or moves should be their second nature), for they have the power to stipulate lower ranked police men, and make sure they are fulfilling their duties correctly. The theory of restrictions on stop and frisk has no guarantee of working, because it has never been done in the past. However, people requested previously that police officers have a different approach on training and â€Å"disciplinary policies†. No one knows how legitimate an officers training is, but it is safe to say, evidently their training on stop and frisking people is developing the mind of a discriminative police officer. Study shows that recently in 2011 a total of 685,724 people were stopped and out of that number 605,328 people were innocent. Amongst that 350,743 were black, 223,740 were Latino, 61,805 were white, and 341,581 were aged 14-24. With such high numbers you can see that there is no restriction, neither is there any order. Nonetheless, if officers were trained with restrictions, having to obtain a warrant, then the number of innocents being stop and frisked would decrease, and ensure people’s boundaries, while still carrying out their responsibilities. Instead of trying to force people into submission and risking the chances of aimlessly searching a blameless person, charity events should be conducted. The same strength, power and wisdom a cop has to heedlessly invade the privacy of another, they can join forces with the community, together hosting events that carefully exhibits the consequences of violence. Stop and frisk could go as far back as gun violence, gang banging, possession of illegal drugs, etc. No one could personally change someone’s character, but if told the ramifications it would implant options; something that people fail to realize they have. These events could lead to activities, buildings, and shows that could primarily keep people off the streets. Of course these types of things require money, which can be raised by the people of our communities. According to Ignite Tampa, it’s good to have a sense of community, meaning â€Å"a feeling members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and the group, and a shared faith that members needs will be met through their commitment to be together†. If these violent communities had  more productive things occurring that made them feel that they belong then violent activities would decrease far greater than using an aggressive method like stop and frisk. Community engagement can increase employment, economic growth, and decrease criminal movement, â€Å"pollution† and â€Å"ethnic disparities†. Getting involved in the community doesn’t only help others, but as well as you. Caring can go a long way, it can go as far as discontinuing stop and frisk. It is understandable that people don’t want the stop and frisk policy to change or cease because they believe it has slowed down many crimes in advance. However, keeping stop and frisk as is, without rectifying it would cause communities to feel uncomfortable and violated, simply because it is an erratic search officers are conducting. People may think that my solutions are expensive, or unrealistic. The average income of a community can range from $60,000-$200,000, and a small charity event cost from as low as $1,000 to $10,000, so as far as expenses, a community has more than enough money to fund for charity events. As far as being realistic anything is possible, it all comes down to how far one is willing to go to fight for their rights and what they may believe in. My solutions will work with the dedication of many. If we want to fight against stop and frisk and regulate it we should together think of reasonable solutions of how that could be done. Two solutions that I presented were for the mayor to create restrictions that ensures one’s boundaries, and for the community to come together to host events stating the consequences of violence. Spread the word now and tell others of these solutions. Come together and volunteer to help out your community. Stop, stop and frisk and reduce criminal activities. What goes on in your community will affect you, take your stance.

African Americans, HIV and AIDA Essay - 2302 Words

African Americans who live in low-income communities are more likely to engage in unprotected sexual activities than those who live in higher-income communities. ii Table of Contents Chapter Page/s I. The Problem 1-2 II. Theoretical Framework 3-5 III. Hypothesis 6 IV. Population and Design 7-8 V. Conclusion 9-10 VI. Bibliography 11-12 1 I. Problem Little to nothing was known about Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)†¦show more content†¦So, the issue at hand and the recommendation concerning preventive health and counseling prevent sexually transmitted diseases and human immunodeficiency virus begins with the efficacy of risk reduction (sexual behavior), prevention, intervention, and clinician counseling deliver in a variety of settings (clinician or non-clinician). Many studies has revealed that children are not receiving information about sexuality and sexual behavior from their parents, do not have the availability of physicians to counsel adolescents and adult patients on measures to prevent STDs (primarily HIV), especially if they are treated once for infections in lower-income communities. There are other factors and measures that have been issued by a number of organizations that explain why African Americans and where they live makes them more susceptible to HIV infection and AIDS. Sexually transmitted diseases as a whole affect millions of people in the United States and around the world each year, causing significant morbidity and mortality. In this study, I will try to discover why this epidemic has run out of control, especially among African Americans, in the United States which has continued to rise, reaching more than 160,000 by the end of 1990 (CDC, 1994). And through December 2000, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has received reports of 774,467 AIDS cases, of those, 292,522 cases occurred among African Americans (CDC, 2000). 3