Maura Durante amd AlQuida

dathi1

Anybody see the article in the Herald. She was surprised that former Al Mahajorun spokesperson due to give an AlQuida gig at the philosophical society in TCD would not shake her hand because he was a Muslim. Pity she doesn't visit some of the outer suburburbs not too far from the TV3 studios where Algerian "asylum seekers" seeking asylum because their their version of Islam is too extreme for Algeria.
I leant a lawn mower to one a couple of months ago and he was abhorred when I offered the hand of friendship to his wife.

tallus

hmm that's crazy alright, I think everyone has a right to believe in what they want to, but they should at least pay heed to how we live if they want to live here.

Memnoch

He doesn't want to shake her hand because his religion forbids him from making physical contact with any woman that is not his wife. I know in our free thinking and somewhat promiscious society this kind of attitude seems alien, but I don't see why it's such a big deal.

I think on things like this it's not difficult to respect other people's cultural values. He isn't asking her to put on a burka, she shouldn't ask him to touch her, seems like a fair deal :P

tallus

Yeah but that's a double edged sword if you ask me.

Doctor Benway

dathi1 wrote:

Pity she doesn't visit some of the outer suburburbs not too far from the TV3 studios where Algerian "asylum seekers" seeking asylum because their their version of Islam is too extreme for Algeria.

Is it really because their version is Islam is too extreme (and I'm not doubting that it may very well be extreme) or is it because of the record of the Algerian State security services against 'extreme' Muslims. Their human rights record is pretty appalling.

therecklessone

Still not sure this is a politicall issue, possibly humanities?

tallus wrote:

Yeah but that's a double edged sword if you ask me.

How so?

dathi1

Still not sure this is a politicall issue, possibly humanities?

AlMahoruun, AlQuida, Multiculural interaction. The recent debates in TCD. I suppose the best way to brush it under the carpet would be to put it there.

dathi1

or is it because of the record of the Algerian State security services against 'extreme' Muslims. Their human rights record is pretty appalling

cuts both ways. FIS have killed hundreds of thousands of their fellow muslims there.

therecklessone

dathi1 wrote:

AlMahoruun, AlQuida, Multiculural interaction. The recent debates in TCD. I suppose the best way to brush it under the carpet would be to put it there.

I wouldn't give up the day job yet, your mind reading skills leave a lot to be desired.

A discussion on the cultural differences between different ethnic groups is best suited to the humanaities board IMHO. I'm able to read between the lines and see you're "see, multiculturalism is a baaaaaaaaad idea" slant, how many others can?

Memnoch's explained the thinking behind the gesture:

Memnoch wrote:

He doesn't want to shake her hand because his religion forbids him from making physical contact with any woman that is not his wife. I know in our free thinking and somewhat promiscious society this kind of attitude seems alien, but I don't see why it's such a big deal.

Its not that big a deal, is it? If Durante had offered AlMahoruun non-Halal meat and he'd refused would you have a problem?

dathi1

Its not that big a deal, is it? If Durante had offered AlMahoruun non-Halal meat and he'd refused would you have a problem?

I dunno about meat eating....but its a very common human natural thing for humans to greet each other in a natural way like smiling and shaking hands. male and female have done this for millions of years.

therecklessone

dathi1 wrote:

I dunno about meat eating....but its a very common human natural thing for humans to greet each other in a natural way like smiling and shaking hands. male and female have done this for millions of years.

Not in Japan.

Bowing (ojigi) is a very important custom in Japan. Japanese people bow all the time. Most commonly, they greet each other by bowing instead of handshaking. It is impolite not to return a bow to whoever bowed to you. Japanese people tend to become uncomfortable with any physical forms of contact. But, they became used to shaking hands with westerners.

Source

dathi1

dathi1 wrote:

AlMahoruun, AlQuida, Multiculural interaction. The recent debates in TCD. I suppose the best way to brush it under the carpet would be to put it there.

The mods of politics(or admins) decide those kind of things anyway.
You do not have to pay heed to what other posters(or mods of other boards) say regarding the above.

Decision-It stays here and we see where it runs too.

therecklessone

Earthman wrote:

The mods of politics(or admins) decide those kind of things anyway.
You do not have to pay heed to what other posters(or mods of other boards) say regarding the above.

It was a personal opinion Earthman, not an attempt to elbow into the moderating process. Just wanted to clear that up.

Anyway, if its greeting people you're interested in dathi1, be very careful in Germany.

The real problem isn't just grammar; it is also a matter of culture. An English-speaker is not used to making the distinction between the familiar and formal you (except in the similar "Mr. Brown" vs. "Bob" situation). The German-speaker is very much aware of it and can become very uncomfortable when the du/Sie rules are broken. German-speakers tend to keep their distance longer with acquaintances than English-speakers do. German business colleagues who have worked together for years continue to address each other as Sie. It does not mean they are unfriendly, but they are maintaining the important German division between truly close friends and mere acquaintances.

So what are the rules? Every beginning German student learns that you use Sie for formal address (Wie heißen Sie? - What is your name?) and du (plural, ihr) for the familiar (Hans, hast du deinen Mantel? - Hans, do you have your coat?). Sie is for strangers or people you don't know well. Only God, children, pets, close friends, and family members are addressed as du.

Source

IIRC, younger German's tend not to be as fussy regarding this (perhaps because they're more used to Anglo-Saxon influences on their culture?), but imagine all that fuss over the word "you"...

dathi1

Not in Japan.

I lived in Japan back in 96 for 1 year. Great place! Bowing is customary between people but hand shaking is now also quite common. Male and Female interaction is very natural just like here. However a Japanese person in Ireland would not expect you do not shake hands with his wife or partner. Durante was upset because he wouldn't shake hands with her because she was female but Mark Cagney got the hand shake because he's male. If you think that type of behaviour is normal and acceptable here well...

therecklessone

dathi1 wrote:

Durante was upset because he wouldn't shake hands with her because she was female but Mark Cagney got the hand shake because he's male. If you think that type of behaviour is normal and acceptable here well...

I'd expect a member of the TV3 news team to be informed enough to know the basics of the Islamic faith, and as such I'd expect her to see the gesture for what it was and not an affront to her gender.

Juts copped we've been spelling her name wrong, its Derrane.

fly_agaric

dathi1 wrote:

However a Japanese person in Ireland would not expect you do not shake hands with his wife or partner

Yes. They probably believe in "when in Rome...", whereas very devout (extremist) muslims believe in "my way or the highway". I mean, if you have a direct line to God, your way of doing things just has to be better. Right? Anything else is just, well, evil.

grubber

therecklessone wrote:

I'd expect a member of the TV3 news team to be informed enough to know the basics of the Islamic faith, and as such I'd expect her to see the gesture for what it was and not an affront to her gender.

Juts copped we've been spelling her name wrong, its Derrane.

I would expect a member of the TV3 news team to make it clear in a polite but firm manner that Ireland is a country in which shaking hands is a gesture of friendship, and equality of the sexes prevails.

GuanYin

dathi1 wrote:

I dunno about meat eating....but its a very common human natural thing for humans to greet each other in a natural way like smiling and shaking hands. male and female have done this for millions of years.

You might see it as accepting common local gestures, others would see it as tolerance of religious beliefs.

I think its a small harmless thing if a religious belief interfere with a custom. Its not a patch on the action of the beliefs of the predominant religion in Ireland that is directly responsible for the deaths of god knows how many in Africa.

grubber

psi wrote:

Its not a patch on the action of the beliefs of the predominant religion in Ireland that is directly responsible for the deaths of god knows how many in Africa.

Explain please

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

Explain please

The Catholic Church expressly forbids contraception. So much so that they have actively disuaded those at risk of HIV in sub-saharan africa from using condoms.

They believe that only through morality and abstinence may the scourge of HIV be removed from africa.

In the meantime though, thousands are at risk to HIV, who would not be were it not for the catholic churches presence and teachings, which is ironic, as they actually care for approx 40% of africa's HIV sufferers in thei rmissonary aide stations. It is slightly be glib and disingenious of me to point out that they are effectively making work for themsleves.

One case highlighted last year, where the wife of a HIV infected man decided, on the advice of the local church, not to use condoms during sex with her husband - effectively condemning herself to death by AIDS, showed the extent of the issue.

Now in this country most people don't strictly practice the teaching of the catholic church, but Ireland is a well educated developed country. Many of the missionaries in Africa are Irish missionaries and they, it can be argued, are holding the conviction of their faith.

By comparison, not shaking hands with a woman can be let slide, I'd imagine and it hardly puts Ireland (as a country predominantly Catholic and a church with the governments ear, no matter what Bertie says) in any sort of a position to make a moral highground judgement on the practices of beliefs of other religions.

Memnoch

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes. They probably believe in "when in Rome...", whereas very devout (extremist) muslims believe in "my way or the highway". I mean, if you have a direct line to God, your way of doing things just has to be better. Right? Anything else is just, well, evil.

I'm sorry but this is riduculous. I know plenty of muslims who feel they shouldn't touch women they are not married to, or consume alcohol etc etc etc. That doesn't mean they are extremists that want all non-muslims (including me, their friend) to die and go to hell etc.

Islam does not teach that, though people like osama bin laden and the christian fanatics on the other side of the fence like to pretend it does.

It's not about doing things better or doing things right. They aren't telling irish women to not shake hands with men, they are just following their beliefs. As long as they do so without imposing them on anyone else I fail to see the issue. That is what tolerance and multi-culturalism is really about.

As I said before....
they don't ask Irish women to wear Burka's
we shouldn't ask muslim men to touch Irish women.

Ofc not all muslim men are like this, I know pleanty that are far more promiscious than any Irish person I know :P

simu

What a pointless thread. OP, do you want some sort of obligatory handshake law brought in or what?!!

fly_agaric

Memnoch wrote:

I'm sorry but this is riduculous. I know plenty of muslims who feel they shouldn't touch women they are not married to, or consume alcohol etc etc etc. That doesn't mean they are extremists that want all non-muslims (including me, their friend) to die and go to hell etc. Islam does not teach that, though people like osama bin laden and the christian fanatics on the other side of the fence like to pretend it does.

Well they must be pretty devout to go so far as not touching women they are not married to.
What they want is irrelevant. You will all die (everyone does). Will you not also go to hell because you didn't convert to Islam?

Memnoch wrote:

It's not about doing things better or doing things right.

No. That is exactly what religious beliefs are about from the believer's point of view. If such people felt they were in a position to demand the observance of these rules by decree they'd do it in a heartbeat. You'd think Irish people would know and understand that, what with the power that the Catholic church had here not so long ago.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

Bowing is customary between people but hand shaking is now also quite common.

This commonality of hand-shaking is, of course, because westerners knew to learn to live with Japenese customs when they went to Japan?

No, wait...that doesn't make sense....

If you think that type of behaviour is normal and acceptable here well...

You seem to think handshaking is normal and acceptable in Japan. Lets assume it is, and that you're not mistaking tolerance of foreigners ignoring local custom with acceptance. (I'm not being sarcastic here...I'm assuming you are correct).

How did it become so acceptable? From the relative handful of Japanese who'll have lived in Western nations, coming home and forcing some cultural revolution on the rest of their nation?

I don't think so.

Apparently westerners don't care about whether "that type of behaviour" is acceptable or not when they take their own behaviour abroad. Its amazing how touchy we can get when what goes around comes around.

jc

grubber

psi wrote:

The Catholic Church expressly forbids contraception. So much so that they have actively disuaded those at risk of HIV in sub-saharan africa from using condoms.

They believe that only through morality and abstinence may the scourge of HIV be removed from africa.

In the meantime though, thousands are at risk to HIV, who would not be were it not for the catholic churches presence and teachings, which is ironic, as they actually care for approx 40% of africa's HIV sufferers in thei rmissonary aide stations. It is slightly be glib and disingenious of me to point out that they are effectively making work for themsleves.

One case highlighted last year, where the wife of a HIV infected man decided, on the advice of the local church, not to use condoms during sex with her husband - effectively condemning herself to death by AIDS, showed the extent of the issue.

Now in this country most people don't strictly practice the teaching of the catholic church, but Ireland is a well educated developed country. Many of the missionaries in Africa are Irish missionaries and they, it can be argued, are holding the conviction of their faith.

By comparison, not shaking hands with a woman can be let slide, I'd imagine and it hardly puts Ireland (as a country predominantly Catholic and a church with the governments ear, no matter what Bertie says) in any sort of a position to make a moral highground judgement on the practices of beliefs of other religions.

PSI, Firstly I would have to agree that any death or suffering through hIV/Aids is tragic. And people who spread this infection knowingly or otherwise should be prevented from doing so. But I can't quite see how you square your original comment "the action of the beliefs of the predominant religion in Ireland that is directly responsible for the deaths of god knows how many in Africa" with this. The impression I'm getting from your point of view is the Catholic Church of is guily of this "crime" (which is effectively tantamount to genocide).

Are you accusing the Catholic Church of genocide?

therecklessone

grubber wrote:

The impression I'm getting from your point of view is the Catholic Church of is guily of this "crime" (which is effectively tantamount to genocide).

Are you accusing the Catholic Church of genocide?

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Genocide requires intent, and since HIV respects neither national, ethnical, racila or religious groups, one would have to suggest that the church intended to inflict significant damage to every such group in Africa (including Roman Catholics) for the charge to hold water. I'll leave psi to argue his/her own case, but genocide it is not.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

You will all die (everyone does). Will you not also go to hell because you didn't convert to Islam?

Then they better take a ticket then because a lot of religons are based on the fact your going to hell unless you join them.

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

(which is effectively tantamount to genocide).

No its not, therecklessone has explained perfectly above

grubber wrote:

Are you accusing the Catholic Church of genocide?

It depends if we're using the actual definition of genocide or the definition you have made up above.

To the best of my knowledge, the catholic church are not commiting genocide anywhere in the world.

However, they are weighing the lives (and suffering) of thousands (and we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands) against the strict adherence to their religious belief.
This is not actually the topic, I'm merely making the point that Ireland, as a predominantly christian catholic society, is in no moral position to condemn anyone elses religious theology, at least not without a hard examination of their own first.

dathi1

Apparently westerners don't care about whether "that type of behaviour" is acceptable or not when they take their own behaviour abroad. Its amazing how touchy we can get when what goes around comes around.

I don't know about "Westerners" abroad. Although I have travelled extensively in the middle east and I have put my hand on my chest as is the expected gesture when greeting Muslim women in some areas of Egypt, Yemen etc... I don't agree with it but when in Rome. Now as far as I'm concerned here in Ireland women and men are equal. ..As to when they get that equality in some Muslim countries is their problem. If you think gender discrimination is ok because its "Gods" command then so be it. I'm sure you're in the minority here....I mean over there... in that Multicultural Shangri-La that is Bern (so far).

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

I don't know about "Westerners" abroad.

You don't? So what's your theory about how the Japenese have adopted hand-shaking? They thought it was a neato idea they saw on the TV, and decided to dump their own cultures?

And if you've travelled extensively in the middle east, you should presumably also be aware of the relative prevalence of "ex-pat" communities, where English, Irish, Americans etc. live in little Western enclaves to that they can maintain their own way of life whilst living amongst Muslims. Y'know...not doing what the Romans do.

See...you might consider that you, individually, are a good example of how you think things should be done, and I'm not questioning that in the slightest. However, I don't believe you are in any way representative, except perhaps in the insistence that it's wrong when it happens in our country.

Every time this type of conversation comes up, I'm always reminded of the "speaking foreign languages" discussions that also crop up from tiem to time where I'm quite literally embarrassed by the arrogance shown by so many people who believe little less than that English is what everyone else should be able to speak and the only langauge anyone should need to know.

far as I'm concerned here in Ireland women and men are equal.

I'm petty certain that without much effort I can give you a number of situations where not only are they not equal, but where you will in all probability agree that it is simply impractical to ignore gender.

Women priests would be an ideal starting place. When's the last time you've seen one of those in the dominant, non-discriminatory church in Ireland?

..As to when they get that equality in some Muslim countries is their problem.

Whereas when they live in a nation such as Ireland, which grants them not just equality but freedom of religion, you have an issue that they choose one over the other? Bit like those Catholics and their female priests.

Put succinctly, your problem appears to be that we grant them freedom and you don't like what they're doing with it.

If you think gender discrimination is ok because its "Gods" command then so be it. I'm sure you're in the minority here....I mean over there...

Well, the Christian religion that is predominant in Ireland believes gender discrimination is OK to a point, but like I said...its in a manner that you've either closed your eyes to or have decided that the point at which Irish people involve themselves in gender-based discrimination is ok...its just other discrimination (or being more discriminatory) thats the problem.

in that Multicultural Shangri-La that is Bern (so far).

Its not without its problems.

By and large, though, they're caused by people with stances somewhat like your own, in that they insist that others should be more like them (for whatever reason).

And of course, there's problems with those who are unwilling to live inside the strictures of the law...but they're not really the issue here because every society has those.

therecklessone

bonkey wrote:

Whereas when they live in a nation such as Ireland, which grants them not just equality but freedom of religion, you have an issue that they choose one over the other? Bit like those Catholics and their female priests.

Put succinctly, your problem appears to be that we grant them freedom and you don't like what they're doing with it.

Pretty much hits the nail bang on the head.

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

Article 44

2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

The constitutional right to freedom of religious expression overides the demand that Islam leaves aside an element of its belief system to assure the Irish that deep down all Muslims want to do is be just like us.

dathi1 wrote:

I dunno about meat eating....but its a very common human natural thing for humans to greet each other in a natural way like smiling and shaking hands. male and female have done this for millions of years.

Sowhere do we draw the line? You obviuosly feel that Muslim's should abandon at least one belief of their religion to fit in, so how much further do you go before you accept its ok for Muslims to practise their religion?

grubber

bonkey wrote:

And if you've travelled extensively in the middle east, you should presumably also be aware of the relative prevalence of "ex-pat" communities, where English, Irish, Americans etc. live in little Western enclaves to that they can maintain their own way of life whilst living amongst Muslims. Y'know...not doing what the Romans do.

I cannot believe you don't see the difference. In the case of a group of ex-pats who might for example risk breaking strict laws on alcohol by setting up their own private brewing facility for their own use. These "western ways" are most definitely not foisted on the local people.
On the other hand you argue it is reasonable that we should allow intolerant cultures from backward countries to alter our centuries old social etiquette such as offering the hand of friendship in caser it might cause offence.

bonkey wrote:

I'm petty certain that without much effort I can give you a number of situations where not only are they not equal, but where you will in all probability agree that it is simply impractical to ignore gender.

Women priests would be an ideal starting place. When's the last time you've seen one of those in the dominant, non-discriminatory church in Ireland?

Whereas when they live in a nation such as Ireland, which grants them not just equality but freedom of religion, you have an issue that they choose one over the other? Bit like those Catholics and their female priests.

Put succinctly, your problem appears to be that we grant them freedom and you don't like what they're doing with it.

Interesting that the example of Ireland's gender discrimination you should choose is from the Catholic Church. Again I think the difference is considerable. The issue of women priests forms part of the belief system, derived from and influenced by scripture and history. As I see it you are saying that the belief system of the predominant population can now be vilified in our rush to adapt to blow-in cultures of which we know nothing. Nor do we know what else we might end up having to change so as not to "offend" them.

therecklessone

grubber wrote:

intolerant cultures from backward countries

<snip>

blow-in cultures of which we know nothing.

Speaking of intolerance...:rolleyes:

Where do you draw the line grubber? Where do you stop expecting other cultures to abandon deeply held religious beliefs to fit in with your idea of whats acceptable?

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

I cannot believe you don't see the difference. In the case of a group of ex-pats who might for example risk breaking strict laws on alcohol by setting up their own private brewing facility for their own use. These "western ways" are most definitely not foisted on the local people.
On the other hand you argue it is reasonable that we should allow intolerant cultures from backward countries to alter our centuries old social etiquette such as offering the hand of friendship in caser it might cause offence.

So it doesn't matter that they're breaking the law?
To my mind thats worse than not observing local customs.
Of course, you sort of set the stall out on what you
Really think when you say "Intolerant cultures".
Much worse they're from "backward countries".
For goodness sake!
Really, did you not consider that their beliefs are as old or
Older than ours?
Not only do you seem to think our social norms have precident over
Their laws, but also that our social etiquette preceeds their customs?
!

grubber wrote:

Interesting that the example of Ireland's gender discrimination you should choose is from the Catholic Church. Again I think the difference is considerable. The issue of women priests forms part of the belief system, derived from and influenced by scripture and history. As I see it you are saying that the belief system of the predominant population can now be vilified in our rush to adapt to blow-in cultures of which we know nothing. Nor do we know what else we might end up having to change so as not to "offend" them.

Much like they allow our ex-pat communities to break their strict alcohol laws? Double standards much? At the end of the day, their belief system may, in our culture, be belittling to women. But then the main Irish religion is just as bad (unless you have some acceptable scales for which its ok to belittle women, I'd be of the "all or nothing" camp myself).

Its a different culture, they exist, get over it. If you invite a guest over you can't expect them to overlook their life belief system for you.

If you were a naturist, would you expect everyone visiting your home to strip off?

dathi1

Whereas when they live in a nation such as Ireland, which grants them not just equality but freedom of religion, you have an issue that they choose one over the other? Bit like those Catholics and their female priests.

I have an issue of treating women as somehow inferior of receiving the same gesture of friendship to that of a man. The logic you express above about female priests doesn't add up. 1400 years of repression by one middle eastern religion means we bring in more people like Choudry + co to show how equal and free we all are. As a matter of fact all the posts above referring to Christian repression and genocide doesn't excuse more imported repression because its "Gods will".

ps great prog on BBC2 last night by Jonathan Miller on the same subject.

Wibbs

Right on the money dathi1. Just because we were idiots for so long when it came to the church and some of its dodgy ways, doesn't mean we can't criticise dodgy ways in the faiths of others(not just Islam BTW, there are some well dodgy practices among other faiths too). Put it this way, how tolerant of intolerance do we have to be to get the balance right? Actually that's a genuine question.

therecklessone

dathi1 wrote:

I have an issue of treating women as somehow inferior of receiving the same gesture of friendship to that of a man.

Yet that's got little to do with the issue of the ban on contact between unrelated men and women in Islam.

This is not an equality issue. Men can "touch" unrelated men. Women can "touch" unrelated women. Men cannot "touch" unrelated women, nor can women "touch" unrelated men. The issue is a question of modesty, not equality. I tend to disagree with what passes for the protection of modesty in Islam, but I value religious freedom over social etiquette.

Want to follow through on your argument for equality? Argue for the abolition of single-sex public toilets. Why should we protect the modesty of women and men by affording them the right to p*ss in the company of their own sex? How about changing facilites in gyms and sports facilites? Why not argue for unisex changing rooms?

bonkey

grubber wrote:

intolerant cultures from backward countries

I was halfway through writing a reply when this statement hit me and I realised...

Discussing the point with someone starting from this position is a waste of my time.

So I won't bother.

dathi1 wrote:

I have an issue of treating women as somehow inferior of receiving the same gesture of friendship to that of a man.

In a lot of mainland Europe, the two genders are often greeted differently as well. In Ireland (at least amongst the people I know), its still considered good behaviour to hold open a door for a woman. Hell, we don't even bother to distinguish between married and unmarried men in terms of how we greet them, but its still considered good etiquette to address women as miss/mrs/ms.

Its your choice to interpret difference as inferiority, but its interesting that you see that you don't seem to be applying this reasoning to all gender-differentiated treatments...especially those a bit closer to home.

The logic you express above about female priests doesn't add up.

You said we have equality, yes?

So either we have female priests, we don't have equality, or - as I suggested - you are accepting of the inequalities that are so ingrained into our cultural background that we don't notice them, whilst intolerant of inequalities that you see amongst others.

Thats the logic, and it does hold unless you can show me a third option.

And please...don't make the mistake of assuming I picked the only issue where there is inequality. There's no shortage of them. Did you know that the law doesn't recognise male rape, for example? Would you prefer if we used that as an indication of inequality?

Wibbs wrote:

Put it this way, how tolerant of intolerance do we have to be to get the balance right?

Intolerance? Where, exactly, is the intolerance in refusing to commit an act which your religious beliefs tell you is a serious no-no? I can't see it at all.

Conversely, I can easily see the intolerance in suggesting that someone should just abandon their beliefs if and when they jar with local custom, which is what you and dathi1 are apparently supporting.

So how much of your intolerance should I tolerate? All of it, until such points as you break the law because of the exercising of such intolerance. Similarly, how much of what you see as their intolerance should you tolerate? All of it, until such points as their intolerance results in the breaking of a law.

What next? We'll start being offended that certain religions won't eat our Pork (won't someone think of the farmers!)? Or maybe we'll be complaining about the unreasonableness of Hindu's insisting that when MxDonalds sell fries suitable for vegetarians that they have not used beef fat in their cooking oil?

After all, we eat pork, and beef, so they should just shut up and chow down, right?

jc

HelterSkelter

therecklessone wrote:

Yet that's got little to do with the issue of the ban on contact between unrelated men and women in Islam.

This is not an equality issue. Men can "touch" unrelated men. Women can "touch" unrelated women. Men cannot "touch" unrelated women, nor can women "touch" unrelated men. The issue is a question of modesty, not equality. I tend to disagree with what passes for the protection of modesty in Islam, but I value religious freedom over social etiquette.

At last, someone who knows what they are talking about. Most of the posters in this thread don't seem to know anything about Islam.

grubber

HelterSkelter wrote:

At last, someone who knows what they are talking about. Most of the posters in this thread don't seem to know anything about Islam.

Well HelterSkelter,
Perhaps yourself and therecklessone should get together and form a welcoming committee for our Islamic guests. All that is required is a fawning personality combined with a healthy contempt for your own culture. A suitable mantra to chant as you wait at the Airport would be "If you're foreign you MUST be better than us". Oh and don't forget to give them a warm handshake, except the women that is. Their husbands might worry that you have impure thoughts.

As regards posters not knowing anything about Islam. How much do we need to know, in your opinion, before daring to form an opinion? Do we need to demonstrate a knowledge of the 1400 years of Islamic history? Or maybe just little facts like the Prophet's wife being 8 years old? Should we be familiar with Sharia Law which in some countries carries a penaly of death by stoning for women who commit "adultery"? or maybe just 100 lashes if a young woman has sex with her fiance?
Well sorry but it is sufficient for me to keep my eyes and ears open to draw my own conclusions

I quote from Dath1
"She was surprised that former Al Mahajorun spokesperson due to give an AlQuida gig at the philosophical society in TCD would not shake her hand because he was a Muslim."

"Pity she doesn't visit some of the outer suburburbs not too far from the TV3 studios where Algerian "asylum seekers" seeking asylum because their their version of Islam is too extreme for Algeria.
I leant a lawn mower to one a couple of months ago and he was abhorred when I offered the hand of friendship to his wife."

HelterSkelter

grubber wrote:

Well HelterSkelter,
Perhaps yourself and therecklessone should get together and form a welcoming committee for our Islamic guests. All that is required is a fawning personality combined with a healthy contempt for your own culture. A suitable mantra to chant as you wait at the Airport would be "If you're foreign you MUST be better than us". Oh and don't forget to give them a warm handshake, except the women that is. Their husbands might worry that you have impure thoughts.

I said nothing of the sort, I am Irish and proud of it. I can however respect other people's religious beliefs. If someone's religion tells them that it is forbidden to touch a member of the opposite sex whom they are not related to or not married to then fair enough. I don't see any problem with that and I can't understand why Irish people would have a problem with that. The thing that bugs me here is people are trying to make out that it is some kind of equality issue when it has nothing to do with that at all.

therecklessone's point about having unisex toilets and changing rooms is a very good one. To some strict muslims, expecting them to touch a member of the opposite sex they are not related to would be the same as expecting us to have unisex changing rooms.

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Conversely, I can easily see the intolerance in suggesting that someone should just abandon their beliefs if and when they jar with local custom, which is what you and dathi1 are apparently supporting.

While I can't speak for dathi1, that's not my angle at all.

So how much of your intolerance should I tolerate? All of it, until such points as you break the law because of the exercising of such intolerance. Similarly, how much of what you see as their intolerance should you tolerate? All of it, until such points as their intolerance results in the breaking of a law.

Agreed, but there can be a large gap between everyday behaviour and the law. Many things are downright ignorant on both sides that won't get near any law being broken. Simple manners on both sides wouldn't go amiss. If someone explains to somebody why such a handshake is considered odd or against their faith, fair enough. Most don't know the reason. I've met a few Muslim women and I didn't offer to shake their hand out of respect for their customs.

Respect goes both ways and is fostered by knowledge on both sides. Actually that may be the problem in Ireland at least. Muslims and non Muslims are less likely to socialise together because we socialise in different ways. The drinking culture here wouldn't exactly be welcoming for most Muslims(fair enough as well. When I didn't drink it was a pain for me too). Most of the Muslims I've known(and know) were more family/home oriented. I had this very discussion with a Yemeni bloke I know and he reckoned more involvement on both sides with each other would help. The more we can socialise/meet outside work the better the future will be for both of us.

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

You don't? So what's your theory about how the Japenese have adopted hand-shaking? They thought it was a neato idea they saw on the TV, and decided to dump their own cultures?

Eh...that may not be too far from the truth given the worldwide dominance of the products of the US entertainment industry, (especially if it is a trend among the yoof) like, ya know certain habits and customs which have become very common in Ireland over the past while. As an example - assuming you are a certain age, how does the celebration of Holloween compare to when you were a child? Maybe you said "Help the Holloween party"? - now the kiddies have ditched that age-old custom and they say "Trick or Treat" because the gogglebox told them to. Also the massive business relationship between Japan and the US could have had something to do with it - which I admit would have been a result of the Japanese fitting in with the ways of the other rather than the opposite occuring. What's your pet theory - that they were goaded into handshaking by loutish and ignorant Westerners in Japan ignoring the local culture?

bonkey wrote:

And if you've travelled extensively in the middle east, you should presumably also be aware of the relative prevalence of "ex-pat" communities, where English, Irish, Americans etc. live in little Western enclaves to that they can maintain their own way of life whilst living amongst Muslims. Y'know...not doing what the Romans do.

The main reason they are holed up in compounds in countries like Saudi is because the governments didn't want Westerners/foriegners polluting their culture so they set up nice comfy compounds for them to live in where they could indulge their vices (vices within the law, such a wimmin parading around half nekkid) if they wanted. Everyone was happy with that I suppose. If one side is stonewalling out of fear and loathing you aren't going to get much of an exchange of cultures going on. In latter days of course, many of the locals are somewhat angry with the West and the ex-pats that leave to socialise or interact with the locals may be taking their lives into their hands...but again, if you'd rather blame those ignorant Westerners..

As for the rest of your most excellent post - I know - lets do a little experiment. Ask one of your female relatives to go on a few years sabbatical in Pakistan - she can tell us about how its our choice to interpret difference (between the genders) as inferiority!

Hobbes wrote:

Then they better take a ticket then because a lot of religons are based on the fact your going to hell unless you join them.

I just hope I can win the lottery and choose the right one.

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

Nor do we know what else we might end up having to change so as not to "offend" them.

Its seems to me you are expecting them to change so they don't offend us

Its funny that if this man actually didn't like Durante no one would bat an eyelid that he didn't shake her hand. In fact shaking someones hand is often seen as offensive and hypocritical if you aren't supposed to like someone

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4425385.stm

But if you simply refuse on the grounds of personal beliefs, without stating a preference one way or the other towards the person, then people are up in arms. Funny old world.

grubber

Wicknight wrote:

Its seems to me you are expecting them to change so they don't offend us

So you are confirming that we are the ones who have to change our ways. Well that's consistent with other host countries which have been given the "benefit" of large scale muslim immigration.

Wicknight wrote:

Its funny that if this man actually didn't like Durante no one would bat an eyelid that he didn't shake her hand. In fact shaking someones hand is often seen as offensive and hypocritical if you aren't supposed to like someone

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4425385.stm

But if you simply refuse on the grounds of personal beliefs, without stating a preference one way or the other towards the person, then people are up in arms. Funny old world.

Your link to the Mugabe handshake doesn't strengthen your argument. How can you compare a handshake offered by a female reporter to one from President Mugabe? I'll give you a clue, Mugabe was fully aware of the embarrassment this would have caused, whether accepted or declined.

HelterSkelter

Grubber, let's make this very simple. This guy is of the belief that it is a sin for him to shake the hand of a female he is not related to. Do you expect him to go ahead and go against his religion in order to be politicially correct?

bonkey

fly_agaric wrote:

What's your pet theory - that they were goaded into handshaking by loutish and ignorant Westerners in Japan ignoring the local culture?

No. My theory is that they have accepted the fact that Westerners shake hands, and that this is the appropriate way to greet Westerners. The Japanese put a massive store behind politeness, so its unsurprising that they see it as the right thing to do - to accomodate the customs of the other person. (Aside: So do the Swiss, to a lesser degree. Over here, its considered polite to speak the language of the other person...which often leads to the humourous situation where I greet someone in German and they reply to me in English.)

Thats a lesson many could learn: Acceptance that other people have different customs, and that there's nothing to be gained (except a reputation for - as you so eloquently put it - being loutish and ignorant) on insisting that our customs have some form of primacy.

If you want to talk about which customs should "reign" when immigrants move in, then my answer is that none should. Second- and third- generation immigrants will find the balance over time.

The main reason they are holed up in compounds in countries like Saudi is because the governments didn't want Westerners/foriegners polluting their culture so they set up nice comfy compounds for them to live in where they could indulge their vices (vices within the law, such a wimmin parading around half nekkid) if they wanted. Everyone was happy with that I suppose.

Yup. Everyone was happy. The ex-pats were happy to be allowed to maintain their Western way of life, rather than be expected to / forced to adhere to local customs which they would have found incompatible with their existing way of life.

So how come that when we reverse the positions, its all of a sudden unacceptable for foreigners to form these little foreign-culture-preserving communities, and its practically unthinkable that we should suggest that they be allowed to continue to preserve their way of life, by their own choice, in these little communities, equally within the law.

Indeed, I believe you'll find that in some ME countries, the ex-pats have had exceptions made for them - that although X, Y and Z is illegal elsewhere, it is legalised within their little compounds.

So we bring our ways to their lands, get exemption from laws so we can live our lives our way in their countries, speak our language, and do everything possible to be in a "litte West".

When they bring their ways to our lands....they should give everything up, and live like us, and abandon any part of their culture which causes us discomfort. As for making exceptions to our laws to accomodate these people....thats unreasonable.

Why is it ok for us to expect provisions to be made so we don't have to sacrifice our way of life in order to fit with the indigenous cultures & laws, but when its foreigners in our country, such accomodation is portrayed as anathema (and often as little short of some sort of a betrayal of who we are).

Now, while I'm not saying that individuals are so hypocritical, the simple truth is that at a collective level, this is exactly the hypocracy that we can see at work. When we go there, they should make allowances for us. When they come here, they should make allowances for us.

As for the rest of your most excellent post - I know - lets do a little experiment. Ask one of your female relatives to go on a few years sabbatical in Pakistan - she can tell us about how its our choice to interpret difference (between the genders) as inferiority!

When you have to resort to redefining the argument from the strictures placed by a religion to the laws implemented in a country which is based upon those strictures....you've already implicitly conceded the point I was making.

If you can't show me this inferiority with Muslims somewhere like Ireland, but can point to it somewhere like Pakistan, then its clearly not the religion which you're using as the distinguishing feature.....which then begs the question as to how the religion can be to blame.

If I were to say that abortion is legal in the UK, so clearly all Christian nations allow abortion, and thus its the Christian religion which permits abortion, and/or that anyone from the UK must be a supporter of abortion....well....do I really need to point out how hopelessly flawed the logic would be?

jc



jc

grubber

HelterSkelter wrote:

Grubber, let's make this very simple. This guy is of the belief that it is a sin for him to shake the hand of a female he is not related to. Do you expect him to go ahead and go against his religion in order to be politicially correct?

Helterskelter,
I couldn't give a monkey's about the dilemma facing him. I'm amazed that you and some others on this Board are so concerned about his feelings.

bonkey

grubber wrote:

amazed that you and some others on this Board are so concerned about his feelings.

Yeah...insisting that all people be treated equally is a real pain.

Only caring about some is much easier....

...as long as you make sure you're in the some that is cared for.

dathi1

When they bring their ways to our lands....they should give everything up, and live like us, and abandon any part of their culture which causes us discomfort. As for making exceptions to our laws to accomodate these people....thats unreasonable.

No like the male rape quote we're clutching at straws here. I would imagine most people here would like normal relations between immigrants and natives alike. The first step is too adhere to the normal channels of communication between humans. Most Muslims living here: Turks, some Malaysians and others would I presume accept this. There are however an increasing number of Muslim immigrants from Algeria and northern Nigeria who bring the sharia law mentality with them to Ireland. This is unacceptable. I think everybody will remember a few weeks ago during a "Multicultural" promotional soccer gig in the phoenix park the Muslim team pulled out because of Girls playing in some of the opposite teams. We can go off on tangents and pull all types of inequalities from all countries including our own but this by-product of uncontrolled immigration over the past few years just exacerbates divisions. Tolerance goes both ways. I post here specifically to see how far posters will go to excuse any form of non national intolerance towards natives for the sake of this Multicultural myth. I'm never disappointed.

grubber

bonkey wrote:

Yup. Everyone was happy. The ex-pats were happy to be allowed to maintain their Western way of life, rather than be expected to / forced to adhere to local customs which they would have found incompatible with their existing way of life.

So how come that when we reverse the positions, its all of a sudden unacceptable for foreigners to form these little foreign-culture-preserving communities, and its practically unthinkable that we should suggest that they be allowed to continue to preserve their way of life, by their own choice, in these little communities, equally within the law.

Indeed, I believe you'll find that in some ME countries, the ex-pats have had exceptions made for them - that although X, Y and Z is illegal elsewhere, it is legalised within their little compounds.

So we bring our ways to their lands, get exemption from laws so we can live our lives our way in their countries, speak our language, and do everything possible to be in a "litte West".

When they bring their ways to our lands....they should give everything up, and live like us, and abandon any part of their culture which causes us discomfort. As for making exceptions to our laws to accomodate these people....thats unreasonable.

Why is it ok for us to expect provisions to be made so we don't have to sacrifice our way of life in order to fit with the indigenous cultures & laws, but when its foreigners in our country, such accomodation is portrayed as anathema (and often as little short of some sort of a betrayal of who we are).


jc

Bonkey,
Is this an example of what you mean of what life is like in a "little west" enclave?
There have always been restrictions for foreigners. Saudi Arabia's conservative interpretation of Islam bans women from driving and jails people found with Bibles, alcohol or pork. Shops close five times a day for prayers. The kingdom does not have a single cinema.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/28/wbush128.xml - 30k -

grubber