# Sensibilities regarding religious observance



## maxiogee

I wasn't going to post this but, as the poster asked for opinions, and as it is off-topic on the "greetings" thread I decided to open a thread for it.

Am I the only one to be seriously saddened by this comment…



			
				linguist786 said:
			
		

> But my religion is more important than greeting someone properly "according to the norm" in that country if it means physical contact with a gayr-mehram.
> 
> * = gayr-mehram (someone you could potentially get married to)
> 
> Opinions?



Now I really don't hold with religious dogmatism, nor to unquestioned obedience to anything - no matter how "sacred", but I'm prepared to tolerate other people's religious observances when they don't interfere with everyday life, but to hold one's religion as more important than possibly giving offence is something I felt worth questioning.

Now, my thread topic is twofold
*A) Should those who are religious modify their behaviour so as not to offend others?
B) Is it intolerant to be offended by practices involved in other people's religious observance?*

*Please* try to avoid any comments which either might have to be deleted or might cause this thread to be closed. I'm hoping for an open discussion  about "observance" more than about religion.


----------



## Joelline

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Now, my thread topic is twofold
> *A) Should those who are religious modify their behaviour so as not to offend others?*
> *B) Is it intolerant to be offended by practices involved in other people's religious observance?*


 
A. No, I don't believe they should modify their behavior, but I do think they should explain it. If I were introduced to a man who I did not know was Muslim and he withheld his hand (instead of shaking my proferred hand), I would hope he would explain why! I have had this situation occur often among very Orthodox Jewish friends. By now, I know better than to extend my hand, but at first, I was very offended until the Rabbi's wife explained the situation. I thought the Rabbi himself was a boor for not having done so.

I would not expect a dinner guest who was a Muslim or a Jew to eat pork in my home! I would consider myself a very poor hostess if I had not asked about food preferences and prohibitions. I don't serve shellfish to Jewish friends, I don't serve alcohol to Muslim friends, I don't serve meat to vegetarians, I don't serve nuts to those with allergies, etc. It is my responsibility to modify *my* behavior to make my guests feel comfortable. 

When I am the guest, I will try to modify my behavior so as not to offend my hosts. When I'm in Italy, I don't go into a Roman Catholic church with my arms uncovered or in bermuda shorts! I don't run around British cathedrals during noon services, talking at the top of my voice or being a distraction for those who are there to worship.

For me that is the bottom line: you may behave in any way that is consistent with your beliefs as long as you do not make others feel uncomfortable or inferior or just plain awful. 

*Is it intolerant to be offended by practices involved in other people's religious observance?* My general answer would be Yes, it is intolerant. However, I also admit to being slightly offended by some religious practices. I visited the Orthodox synogogue in Florence, Italy, and had to sit upstairs, behind a curtain! I understood the reason for the separation of men and women, but I was slightly offended anyway (especially during times when there was no service going on). I do resent being made to feel like a second-class person by some observant Jews and Muslims, but I still accuse myself of intolerance because when I enter their world (be it business, home, place of worship), I am the guest.


----------



## maxiogee

Joelline said:
			
		

> It is my responsibility to modify *my* behavior to make my guests feel comfortable.
> <snip>
> but I still accuse myself of intolerance because when I enter their world (be it business, home, place of worship), I am the guest.



Do you not note a dichotomy here, Joelline?
On either side of the equation it seems that *you* must be the one to modify.
As I see it, it cannot be both ways.


----------



## cubaMania

I think the question as stated is difficult to answer because the word "offend" can be interpreted different ways.

I see no problem whatsoever with linguist786 declining certain kinds of physical contact, as long as he explains himself so as not to leave the impression that he is rejecting the person from whom he is pulling away. Not being kissed or hugged, etc. is not offensive in and of itself, apart from the social implications of rejection, so explaining takes care of that. No problem.

However, when religious or cultural practices infringe upon other people's rights and freedoms, cause harm or injury, cause inconvenience, etc., then that is when we have a right to be offended (B).
As to (A) that is also when the religious person should think about modifying their own behavior, or exit the location in which their religious beliefs cause offense* and live in a location where their values are considered acceptable. (*Here I mean "offense" in the sense of infringing on other people's rights.)


----------



## Joelline

I saw it as I was writing, maxiogee! I knew what impression it would give (especially to you!), but I stand by it. I'm willing to tolerate other people's strongly held beliefs (and concomittant behaviors) whether I am guest or host! 

And, because it's you (and I know no one else will see this): Don't you see the advantage this gives me: I am the tolerant one! And, childishly, I admit to gloating a bit!

Seriously, think of these behaviors as allergies to peanuts! People who are allergic can go into anaphylactic shock and die from eating the things. Would you force them to eat peanuts? Would you feel offended if, in your home, they refused your offer of a sweet with peanuts or, in their home, refused to serve such things? Of course not. I'm sure this analogy will offend some, but it really is quite similar to some of these religious practices. The next time you start to feel offended, just say to yourself, "Peanuts!"


----------



## maxiogee

Joelline said:
			
		

> And, because it's you (and I know no one else will see this): Don't you see the advantage this gives me: I am the tolerant one! And, childishly, I admit to gloating a bit!



Yes I do see that  , but I also see the pompous twat you give that tolerance too won't see it that way - he'll see it as him getting his beliefs pandered to.


----------



## Joelline

But that's just another thing that makes him a pompous twat!  

Peanuts, Tony, Peanuts!


----------



## linguist786

I am happy to see many people being understanding. 

To be honest, I also agree that it shouldn't be considered offensive - _as long as_ I explain myself - _then_ people should be OK with it and not be offended.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Am I the only one to be seriously saddened by this comment…


Why's that?


----------



## LV4-26

I agree with Joelline on A. They should not modify but they should explain

B
If we stick to the word "_offended_", again I see no reason why anybody should be offended in the situation linguist786 described,  provided....the people explain why they refuse to shake hands or kiss. But I wouldn't call that being "_intolerant_", just _overtouchy_, maybe.

But where is the limit? If the practices in question were to include cannibalism, for instance, being offended would never be considered as blameworthy or as a sign of intolerance, would it?


----------



## panjabigator

Its an interesing discussion.  I have many muslim friends who wear the head scarf, and some of them are cool with my giving them a hug and others arent, so I dont.  I'd say Im pretty respectful of others beliefs. 

In my faith, when you pray you cover your head, and anyone else who is in the room of also covers there head, in respect.  Last year, I had a roommate who was good friends with me, and I sometimes would be praying when he came into the room.  I didnt stop and say "please cover your head."  I let it go because I was like, "eh, explaining things might just make things awkward...there is no reason for me to compell him to do something when its HIS room also...and I figured God could care less...really!  But he was respectful and quiet when ever I did pray, so it was a good compromise.  But I didnt ask him, so I'd say I bent over backwards to keep things not awkward.

I'd say the only time I consider myself intolernt or offended is when disrespect is shown.  Ignorance can be tolerated because you can educate, and besides, I have to realize that my religious practices perhaps may sound strange to Cletus the Yokel down in Missouri.


----------



## Joelline

LV4,

I thought CubaMania stated the limits very neatly: "However, when religious or cultural practices infringe upon other people's rights and freedoms, cause harm or injury, cause inconvenience, etc., then that is when we have a right to be offended."  I'm not quite in agreement about the "inconvenience" part, but ascribe to the rest of this statement.  It's inconvenient for me to travel around Rome on a hot day with a sweater to cover my arms if I go into the Vatican, but I can cope with that!  

When it comes to rights, freedoms, harms, injuries--that's where I draw the line. Bombing or beheading people in the name of a Gracious God is as disgusting and abhorrent as burning them for being witches: it's barbarism and pure evil. But shaking hands, dietary restrictions, etc? None of that harms or injures anyone, and I honestly can't even see why it might offend someone (provided the person understands the reason for the behavior).

Joelline


----------



## panjabigator

Can someone explain to me this shaking hands restriction?  If it is off topic PM me.


----------



## cubaMania

panjabigator said:
			
		

> Can someone explain to me this shaking hands restriction? If it is off topic PM me.


Here's the original thread from which maxiogee extracted linguist786's remarks about physical contact:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=167192


----------



## _Hawk_

I think its a matter of principle. It says nothing about offending others. If we took the "offence" route, then we - hypothetically speaking- can say that the local culture is offensive to that religious person or minority.

However, it has nothing to do with offending anyone.

 Its simply a woman practicing her religion, and she can explain it, usually in a quick, maybe even funny way if the person is used to such situations, so that it would pass normally.

If a girl doesnt want to be touched in any way, its her right. Let it be. Its a form of respecting her, her beliefs, and womens rights. 

Not wanting to be touched in any way, kissed, or hugged probably wont offend anyone, unless if done ( or not done in this case ) with an attitude. Then again the problem wouldnt be not wanting to be touched, it would be the attitude.


----------



## linguist786

_Hawk_ said:
			
		

> I think its a matter of principle. It says nothing about offending others. If we took the "offence" route, then we - hypothetically speaking- can say that the local culture is offensive to that religious person or minority.
> 
> However, it has nothing to do with offending anyone.
> 
> Its simply a woman practicing her religion, and she can explain it, usually in a quick, maybe even funny way if the person is used to such situations, so that it would pass normally.
> 
> If a girl doesnt want to be touched in any way, its her right. Let it be. Its a form of respecting her, her beliefs, and womens rights.
> 
> Not wanting to be touched in any way, kissed, or hugged probably wont offend anyone, unless if done ( or not done in this case ) with an attitude. Then again the problem wouldnt be not wanting to be touched, it would be the attitude.


Thank You! That's a great post - I like what you say about explaining in a humourous way - it's a good idea.

I really don't see why maxiogee is "saddened" by what i said.


----------



## cuchuflete

> But my religion is more important than greeting someone properly "according to the norm"...[under whatever circumstances]


I applaud and respect a person who is sincere and dedicated about their faith and religion.  The majority of people I know and see who claim to follow a religion do so more in name than in fact.  I try to be respectful towards both the former and the latter, but respecting the _stated _beliefs and practices of the nominal religionists takes much more work.

I cannot imagine taking offense at a strange--for me--religious practice.  That's simply--for me--a cultural curiosity to learn about.  If it violates my own standards of decency, I can absent myself from it or actively oppose it.
Taking offense is a namby-pamby in-between step.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:
			
		

> *A) Should those who are religious modify their behaviour so as not to offend others?*
> *B) Is it intolerant to be offended by practices involved in other people's religious observance?*


A. I don't think they should modify their behaviour - I myself really admire people who value their religion more than etiquette. I think I would feel offended if a man whom I stretch my hand towards refuse to shake hands with me, but if he explains that he's a Muslim, and his religion forbid that - I'll understand!
Also, it is commonly known that we should treat other people in the same way as we'd like to be treated. And I don't want to be forced to modify my behaviour according to the Muslim rules if I go to Egypt or any other Mulsim country. 

B. What's the matter of taking offence by those practices? Just think of the culture *you* belong to and try to imagine how strange it must seem to your vis-a-vis. It helps. 

I'd like to add that it seems to me that in recent years rules of religion are becoming less strict. For example, I belong formally to the Russian Orthodox Church, and it is said to have very strict rules. Women shouldn't come into a church with head and arms uncovered; they should wear long skirts and avoid using cosmetics when they go to church. But... No one would order a girl to leave the church immediately if she's wearing trousers, for instance (trousers, not bermuda shorts). And when only yesterday I came into a cathedral in Yaroslavl, wearing a T-shirt with short sleeves (I just forgot my anorak in the car), no one told me a word about, in fact, my breaking the rules.


----------



## LV4-26

Joelline said:
			
		

> LV4,
> 
> I thought CubaMania stated the limits very neatly:


 Yeah right. I'd read CubaMania's post too quickly. I just wanted to emphasize that there's always a problem each time you have to draw a limit because that is often very difficult to do in an objective way. However, in that particular case, it seems it's fairly easily done. My apologies.

Actually, my post didn't make much sense because I had something else in mind, questions raised by Tony's interrogations, which I thought were off-topic (and which have to do with tolerance in a broader sense and, basically, to what extent we must keep silent for the sake of tolerance and, beyond that, are all opinions and attitudes "equal"?). 

My choice of a deliberately extreme example wasn't designed to prove a point but to remain prudent. In that case, my specific concern was not about being _offended _or not. It was about feeling free or not to say that we find something "wrong", even if saying so may offend someone else's religious (and, more generally, moral or politcal or whatever) belief.


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:
			
		

> A. I don't think they should modify their behaviour - I myself really admire people who value their religion more than etiquette. I think I would feel offended if a man whom I stretch my hand towards refuse to shake hands with me, but if he explains that he's a Muslim, and his religion forbid that - I'll understand!



I felt saddened by the concept of not adjusting one's behaviour to make others feel comfortable - when in their home or country —> the old "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is sound advice in interpersonal relations.

As to the specifics, I suggest that there is something deeply offensive in refusing to touch someone who reaches out to you. If the person is a co-religionist, they won't reach out! In the very act of reaching out they show that they are not aware of your principle.
On a side note I find it very, very weird that one is not allowed to touch 50% of the human population - on the grounds that you *might* marry them. (Am I alone in finding the Religions of The Book all excessively concerned with sexual mores to the detriment of concern for the individual?)


----------



## natasha2000

I'm afraid I don't have much to add, since I agree with Joeline, Cubamania, LV-4 26 and Etcetera...

The quiestion is, what you've all been saying, where is the line, and I think it is not so necessary to go to extreme and mention murders or canibalism.
It is enough to see the example Panjabigator gave... So, I think religious people cannot expect to be understood if they do not: A) explain yourselves, AND/OR B) make little compromises. The anegdote Panja told is an excellent example of a tolerance and respect AND a mutual compromise made bu both sides, and without any explanation, whatsoever.

Recently, there I heard a story about a Muslim woman, a doctor, who was in a company of her non-muslim coleagues from other countries, and when they went to have dinner, she said she cannot go since she cannot drink wine. So, Everybody in respect to her,and in order not to leave her to go to hotel alone, did not drink any alcohol at dinner. I think that this is a little bit more than tolerance to her. As Joeline said, I will not make an allergic person to eat peanuts, but I am not allergic....

Then, I also heard stories about muslim women don't wanting to eat together at the same table with someone who ordered pork...  There I WOULD be offended, for sure.

As Panja pointed out: tolerance is expected and welcome from both parts, not only from the part that is not religious.


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:
			
		

> (Am I alone in finding the Religions of The Book all excessively concerned with sexual mores to the detriment of concern for the individual?)


 I think there are a few examples to the exact opposite in the Gospels (granted, this is the book, not exactly the religion). Maybe not exactly with *sexual* mores but at least with mores and rituals in general. Mentionning them would be off-topic, though. But you might cast an eye over Mark 2:23 through 2:28.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tony's questions are especially useful because they cause us to raise questions about at least three sets of assumptions -

1. The religious believer who closely follows teachings which may be, are not always, about the religious faith itself.  Sometimes the teachings are about customs that have been associated with a religion for so long that the practitioners of the religion assume the customs to be part of the religion itself.  Pick almost any religion you know well, and you are apt to be able to find a few of these.  

2. The person who considers themself open to and tolerant of cultural differences, but when shocked and or inconvenienced by the open, unashamed display of such differences, starts to question the degree to which such displays might require explanations.  Does such a display require an explanation by the person making it, if they are aware of a likely cultural dissonance? Or, should they simply and quietly be true to their own values, and leave it to those in the surrounding setting to ask for or demand an explanation?

3. (Beware, I'm about to use a highly contentious word: rights.) When fairly large numbers of people live close together, and follow religious and other customs that are inherently in opposition and even in conflict, who, if anyone, has the right to dictate how people should behave when members of these groups with opposing values interact?
Example--  In Pennsylvania, most of the Amish do not use automobiles. They drive horsecarts.  Horsecarts move more slowly, and the horses, being animals, act like some football fans.  They relieve themselves when they feel a need to do so.  As a result, they sometimes defecate in the middle of a street.

Most of the surrounding society, the users of automobiles, are inconvenienced, and often shocked, by the slow progression of vehicular traffic.  They may be deeply offended by the horse turds on the road.  (Meaningless aside- they may also earn a living from the tourists who come to the area to gawk at the source of these inconveniences.)  I have heard non-Amish people in the area complain about the terrible lack of consideration of those who travel by horse cart.  So, who has the right to inconvenience whom, and why?

Many of us decry multinationalism, for its homogenization of languages and cultures.  And yet, when unhomogenized cultures--including religious customs--come into contact, there is often friction and discomfort.  I don't know of any one 'right' answer, but Joelline's descriptions of her efforts to be courteous and considerate come close.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I felt saddened by the concept of not adjusting one's behaviour to make others feel comfortable - when in their home or country —> the old "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is sound advice in interpersonal relations.


Oh. I should have chosen words more carefully. OK, let me try to explain what I meant when I said that people shouldn't modify their behaviour etc. etc. 
The point is that in modern world there seem to exist some common norms and rules. And I suppose every person (every _thinking _person) would try to find a compromise between rules of the society they come from and the society they come in. What I meant exactly was actually a limited numbers of prescriptions which cannot be softened so: for example, this Muslim rule that Linguist has mentioned. People may feel offended, but why not explain them the thing? I'm sure most of us wouldn't insist of breaking the Muslim rule! What is important is communication itself, not the physical part of it. The latter is important, too, but only to an extent. 
Did I make you feel less sad, Tony?


----------



## MarcB

I do not need to touch everyone. maybe because I have been exposed to many religions "maybe noone wants to touch me" but don't be so sensitive. We are in a multicultural world now so accept other peoples mores.


----------



## moodywop

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> And yet, when unhomogenized cultures--including religious customs--come into contact, there is often friction and discomfort. I don't know of any one 'right' answer


 
I also think that there is no easy answer. 

I am reminded of a case that caused an outcry in the UK when I lived there. A diplomat performed the ritual slaughter of a goat outside his house in a London suburb. The neighbours who witnessed this were horrified and called the police.

A heated debate has been going on for years in the UK and other countries about the exemption from regulations on humane slaughter (which require the use of stunning) granted to Halal and Kosher slaughter-houses:

_Both Islam and Judaism forbid consuming animals' blood and require that livestock be conscious when killed so that the blood pumps out. Although animal-cruelty regulations throughout Europe say that livestock must be stunned before slaughter, Britain and most countries allow exemptions on religious grounds. Spain, for example, permits the religious slaughter of sheep and goats, but not beef_. (Time magazine)

Opinion was split both within political parties and among animal welfare groups.

I just wanted to quote this as an example of the inevitable "friction" Cuchu mentioned and the difficult issues this raises.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi

not only becasue of religion, it can be cultural custom, for instance, Swedish people don't touch each other when they meet, at least the Suedes I know personally, 

would you, Maxiogee, feel sadenned too becasue of this Swedish custom practised outside Sweden?

as for your idea religions are very concerned with sex, yes, I think so.


----------



## panjabigator

Here is an interesting example of religious tolerance.  There was a Muslim woman who wore the burqa (the head scarf which covers everything except the eyes) and she wanted to get her drivers license.  As expected, your photo must be taken and she didn't want to dis-vail herself for the photo.  I believe they took the picture anyway and somehow or another the story leaked to the press.  Viewing just the eyes, in my opinion, is not enough for identification, and though this lady was probably a law abiding citizen (I think she was an American convert, but that is a side note and probably irrelevent) her ID would not be adequate identification....almost anyone could put on a Burqa and claim to be her.  I dont remember what the outcome of this incident was, but I think I'll stand with the government here when they say you must have an "adequate" ID to drive.  Is that intolerent of me...well maybe a little, but there is only so much to that I can do.

I'll add something about meat eating in a bit...I have to go to work... "Subway, Eat fresh!"


----------



## Etcetera

When Koran was written, there was no cars. That's all. 
Speaking seriously, I think that the context must also be taken into consideration. Nothing awful will happen if we'll have to put out some norms of etiquette because of a person's religious views! It's only a minor case, etiquette won't be overthrown because of that. But in such cases as Panjabigator has told - it seems that the government was right here. But I'd like to hear our Muslim's opinion of that.


----------



## cherine

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I believe they took the picture anyway and somehow or another the story leaked to the press. Viewing just the eyes, in my opinion, is not enough for identification, and though this lady was probably a law abiding citizen (I think she was an American convert, but that is a side note and probably irrelevent) her ID would not be adequate identification....almost anyone could put on a Burqa and claim to be her. I dont remember what the outcome of this incident was, but I think I'll stand with the government here when they say you must have an "adequate" ID to drive. Is that intolerent of me...well maybe a little, but there is only so much to that I can do.


This is one story I think I read last year or something, and made me angry: such people make Islam looks like a very rigid and dumb religion.
In Egypt -and speaking of compromises- women who wear this sort of hijab (here we don't call it "burqa" but "niqab") when they need to be photographed, they go to a woman photographer, and they show the photos only when they have to, and mostly -and this is the compromise from the side of the government (which is, by the way, not at all enthusiastic about women wearing niqab)- when these women are required to show their passeport, ID card, driving license... there's a woman employee who does the cheking to be sure that this person is indeed the one on the photo.

Compromises are sometimes the best solution, everybody is eventually happy, or as happy as can be 
I, for example, don't like very much shaking hands with men -not only because of religion, but it just isn't my kind of greeting- but, as I said in that greeting thread: I don't start by holding out my hand, but if the man does I feel it's rude to let him down. A smile and a look in the eye is just fine with me in what concerns "physical" greeting 

Another compromise : I once went out with some foreign friends of mine, they drink beer, I don't, I didn't mind sitting on the same table with them. And I know some muslims would say that I shouldn't have, but that was the compromise I could come to.

How else, if we don't find compromises, would people from very different cultures (not necessarily religions) could come along ?



			
				Etcetera said:
			
		

> But I'd like to hear our Muslim's opinion of that.


I think I was very quick answering your question etcetera


----------



## Etcetera

Yes, you were! Thanks a lot. 


> How else, if we don't find compromises, would people from very different cultures (not necessarily religions) could come along ?


I agree entirely! That's it.


----------



## cherine

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Nothing awful will happen if we'll have to put out some norms of etiquette because of a person's religious views! It's only a minor case, etiquette won't be overthrown because of that.


Speaking of etiquette, you reminded me of another middle solution some muslims do while eating in restaurants, or at home...
People who use a fork and knife to eat know that the fork is to be hold with the left hand and the knife with the right hand. Now, muslims are asked to use their right hands to eat.
Solution :
1- some begin with cutting the food with the knife in the right hand, than put it down, hold the fork in the right hand and start eating.
2- others find it more quick and/or convenient to do the cutting with the knife in their left hand, they keep the fork in their right hand and eat simply and easily.

This may sound very futile or silly to some (many?) of you, but as long as we can make every one happy, or at ease, so what's wrong with that ?


----------



## Etcetera

Why futile or silly, Cherine? On the contrary, the solution seems to me a very good one.


----------



## linguist786

My sister also wears the hijaab/pardaah* (only eyes can be seen) but in her passport photo, her whole face can be seen. Last year when we went to Zambia and we were checking in at the airport, all we did was ask for a woman to identify her - that's all. No big deal.

* a "burqaa" is something different


----------



## maxiogee

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> would you, Maxiogee, feel sadenned too becasue of this Swedish custom practised outside Sweden?


As I say, yes - I would. Once again, "when in Rome…" However, I would not insist, once I knew that someone was disinclined to shake hands, on offering my hand to them.

Put it this way, I do not, as an English-speaker, differentiate between "you", in the French way of "tu/vous", but were I in France I would be expected to - not to do so would be considered a very serious breach of etiquette. I know that, so when in France I use "vous". Similarly I would expect a knowledgable Swede to get over their uncomfortable feeling (or whatever it is which holds them back from accepting an outstretched hand) and shake hands when introduced to someone.


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:
			
		

> What I meant exactly was actually a limited numbers of prescriptions which cannot be softened so: for example, this Muslim rule that Linguist has mentioned. People may feel offended, but why not explain them the thing? I'm sure most of us wouldn't insist of breaking the Muslim rule!
> 
> Did I make you feel less sad, Tony?



No.  

What I am about to write goes to the heart of my concern here.  

To quote again the posting from linguist786


			
				linguist786 said:
			
		

> Since I am a Muslim, strictly speaking, there should be no physical contact between a man and a woman who potentially could get married.



Has *anyone* wondered why this rule should exist? Is it thought that one or other of the parties involved would be somehow besmirched by the contact? Is one of the parties likely to be somehow 'unclean'? 
Are we dealing here with what I see as a fine example of the "Religions of the Book" showing their innate inimicality to women.
These are inherently *pat*riarchial religions, with a *male* deity, a usually *all-male* priesthood.


----------



## emma42

Marcb, I understand your frustration (if that is the right word) at people's apparent "sensitivity", but when one is dealing with diverse cultures, to even decide what is and is not "sensitive" may be a difficult matter, becuase one may be imposing one's own cultural definition of "sensitivity" on another.  Do you see what I mean?

Also, even apparently "obvious" things like shaking the head (which you and I would understand to mean "no") can mean all sorts of different things in different cultures.  

Writing this makes me amazed and happy that people of different cultures ever communicate with oneanother!


----------



## emma42

Maxiogee, whilst I agree with your "patriarchy" comments, is it not the case that these matters cannot be questioned by Muslims, since they are part of the Qu'ran and therefore the "word of god"?


----------



## Etcetera

Indeed. I agree with Emma. Rules established by religion aren't to be questioned, that's it.


----------



## emma42

Hold on, Etcetera!  Much as I hate to disagree with my Russian friend, that's not exactly what I said!  I merely said that as Muslims believe that the Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammed (pbuh) by god himself, they cannot question anything in it.


----------



## linguist786

emma42 said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, whilst I agree with your "patriarchy" comments, is it not the case that these matters cannot be questioned by Muslims, since they are part of the Qu'ran and therefore the "word of god"?


Exactly, well put.
To me, Islam is the only way of life and I will follow what it says in the Qur'an since it is the word of God - and how can the word of God be untrue? It can't. If I don't understand why something is, I will still follow it - why? because God wants me to - Why does he want me to? It doesn't matter - the fact is, he does and that's it. Inshallah I will be rewarded for it on the Day of Judgement.


----------



## Etcetera

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hold on, Etcetera! Much as I hate to disagree with my Russian friend, that's not exactly what I said! I merely said that as Muslims believe that the Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammed (pbuh) by god himself, they cannot question anything in it.


The same can be said about any religion, can't it? Frankly, I don't understand why I shouldn't come into a church in trousers, but still I don't rebel against this rule.
Anyway, sorry for this litle misunderstanding at my part.


----------



## maxiogee

linguist786 said:
			
		

> Exactly, well put.
> To me, Islam is the only way of life and I will follow what it says in the Qur'an since it is the word of God - and how can the word of God be untrue? It can't. If I don't understand why something is, I will still follow it - why? because God wants me to - Why does he want me to? It doesn't matter - the fact is, he does and that's it. Inshallah I will be rewarded for it on the Day of Judgement.



How do you know it is the word of God?
Why must it be unquestioned?
The Old Testament tells its believers that this same God has changed his mind in the past.
> Yahweh repented of the evil which he said he would do to his people.
> Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death; for Samuel mourned for Saul: and Yahweh repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.​The Old Testament tells its believers that this same God repented of having created man.
> Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.​It also tells us that this same God was going to destroy man but was deterred by the entreaties of humans - were they not questioning the will of God?
That same God bargained with humans in the case of Lot - 
> Yahweh said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sake."​
This God is a fickle deity.


----------



## Etcetera

Maxiogee... Right you are here, but please don't forget that Islam is a different religion, not just a branch of Christianity!


----------



## maxiogee

But the Old Testament is revered in Islam, is it not? And the God of the Old Testament is the God of Islam, is it not?


----------



## Etcetera

I know too little of Islam to judge. But however similar Christianity and Islam might be, the attitudes of their followers are (it seems) not quite the same. We Christians tend to think about our faith more light-heartedly.


----------



## emma42

Re Linguist's comments, that is also the view, as I understand it, of Christian fundamentalists re the Old Testament.

As I understand the Islamic view, the god of the OT is, indeed, the same god, but Judaism and Christianity were superceded, as it were, by Islam, and that the word of god, as told to Mohammed (pbuh), superceded what had been written before.

Ooh, careful, etcetera!  There may be some differing Christian views to come.


----------



## Etcetera

I think we'd better avoid any further discussion on religious issues... Such discussions, once started, can last for ever.


----------



## Ana Raquel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> ... Similarly I would expect a knowledgable Swede to get over their uncomfortable feeling (or whatever it is which holds them back from accepting an outstretched hand) and shake hands when introduced to someone.


 
it is not they have an uncomfortable feeling, it is you who has an uncomfortable feeling in front of others's customs, for that reason you started this thread, didn't you?

to be knowledgable, yes, good thing, for every part


----------



## emma42

Etcetera!  Nobody has even started quarrelling yet!  The tone is so far respectful.  Let's not give up the discussion yet.  Believe me, if the tone becomes offensive, our wonderful Mods will soon sort it out!


----------



## Ana Raquel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But the Old Testament is revered in Islam, is it not? And the God of the Old Testament is the God of Islam, is it not?


 
not revered, I think there is a contradcition here, muslims (correct me , muslims if I am mistaken) have to take Old and New Testament as God's books too, but at the same time as corrupted books, so, I don't know how they can put both things together, how to follow or revere them thinking they are corrupted, well, I leave this for muslims because I have not read anything about what are the corrupted parts.


----------



## maxiogee

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> (correct me , muslims if I am mistaken)
> 
> I leave this for muslims because



It was my intention that my questions be answered by Muslims, as they were posed to Muslims.
It was not I who mentioned Christianity, I mentioned only the Old Testament. I would prefer if (at present) comparisons were not made between religions as it only muddies the waters.
I ask, to seek clarification, as I do not know.
My attitude to these matters is simply stated…
A) Question everything!
B) Question the answers!
C) Repeat from A.


----------



## maxiogee

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> it is not they have an uncomfortable feeling, it is you who has an uncomfortable feeling in front of others's customs, for that reason you started this thread, didn't you?



True-ish***, but would you not say that someone who declines a hand proffered in greeting and declines to take it must have some level of discomfort which is being reached?

*** My discomfort is with people who do not wish to observe local customs, for whatever reason, if they have not disclosed that reason. The disclosure may not be enough to remove my unease about the person, not about their local/religious customs.

The scene is Ireland…
Am I, presented with a Swede who shies away from contact to be presumed to know (a) that this is a Swede, and/or (b) that they have a cultural reticence about contact?
Is the Swede, in my presence, not to be presumed to know that to refuse a proffered hand is a great insult, and would leave an Irishperson wondering what offence they had caused?
When two cultures "clash" like this, which should concede?

Were the scene to be set in Sweden and were I to meet with a series of refusals when my hand was extended in greeting, I think I would begin to realise that something was going on of which I am obviously not aware. It would be incumbent on me to seek advice, and not just presume that I was meeting a particular series of Swedes who hated me, or who hated the Irish, or some other misconception.


----------



## Ana Raquel

What are you saying maxiogee?  

Swedish people are extrememly polite, at least the Swedes I know personally, they will never refuse shaking hands if they are one hand offered though it is not their way, com'on!


----------



## maxiogee

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> What are you saying maxiogee?
> 
> Swedish people are extrememly polite, at least the Swedes I know personally, they will never refuse shaking hands if they are one hand offered though it is not their way, com'on!



I was reacting to what you had led me to believe when you posted this…


			
				Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> Hi
> 
> not only becasue of religion, it can be cultural custom, for instance, Swedish people don't touch each other when they meet, at least the Suedes I know personally,
> 
> would you, Maxiogee, feel sadenned too becasue of this Swedish custom practised outside Sweden?



You appeared in that posting to be saying that Swedes would not be comfortable with shaking hands.
If I am mistaken, I apologise for mis-interpreting your remarks.
This is about customs clashing, not about shaking hands, my comments are about practice.


----------



## emma42

Well said, Maxiogee. You make some convincing points.


----------



## Joelline

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Has *anyone* wondered why this rule should exist? Is it thought that one or other of the parties involved would be somehow besmirched by the contact? Is one of the parties likely to be somehow 'unclean'?
> Are we dealing here with what I see as a fine example of the "Religions of the Book" showing their innate inimicality to women.
> These are inherently *pat*riarchial religions, with a *male* deity, a usually *all-male* priesthood.


 
Maxiogee,

Yes, of course, I have thought about these things.  But I can't change history.  I can't change the fact that the glorified Founding *Fathers* of my country chose not to give women and blacks all those wonderful new liberties they made a part of the original Constitution!  I can't change the fact that the Patriarchal society of the Hebrew Bible saw women as "unclean."  I can try to understand the causes of such behavior, but it's futile and anachronistic to hold past generations to modern beliefs and/or standards.  

I feel impatient with those who see Thomas Jefferson as *only* a hypocritical slave-holder!  I feel impatient with those who see the Patriarchs as *only *male chauvinists. But, yes, I am sometimes angered with their modern legacies: the Ku Klux Klan, a male-dominated Papacy that still refuses to ordain women!  These modern legacies I oppose as vociferously as I can within my own little sphere of influence.

I can almost hear your reply:  But, Joelline, you also pander to these despicable modern legacies when you tolerate (and accept!) being told what to wear in a Church or when you tolerate (and accept!) not shaking hands with a Muslim male--and without saying a single word!  

My answer: Yes, maxiogee, you are right!  I am a hypocritical idiot with dissociated sensibilities!  And all I can offer are excuses for my heinous behavior: I must live in this world, not in some ideal world!  I must live with others as imperfect as myself. I must try not to increase intolerance in my imperfect world.  I must tend my own miniscule portion of the world and try to make that tiny space better, if I can, by education, explanation, and, yes, tolerance.

And, because I am also a wicked, wicked person, I will tell you another secret:  When I am Queen of the World, all this crap that I'm tolerating is going to stop immediately!


----------



## maxiogee

Joelline said:
			
		

> I can almost hear your reply:



What you almost hear, Joelline, is your own reply ~ not mine.  You do me a slight injustice. But I can live with that.

I would never call your reasoned stance hypocritical. I agree with you, but even if I didn't, the very fact that your stance is reasoned makes it worthy of respect. Reason is our prime distinguishing mark as a species (as far as we know). Unreason is to be countered, questioned and challenged wherever it arises.

My comments about a religion would only be towards those who practice it.

Tolerating the intolerances of others is a mark of respect. Even if their intolerance is groundless, unquestioned "custom and practice". I would not denigrate someone who didn't protest intolerance, it can be an awkward thing to do.


----------



## Ana Raquel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I was reacting to what you had led me to believe when you posted this…
> 
> 
> You appeared in that posting to be saying that Swedes would not be comfortable with shaking hands.
> If I am mistaken, I apologise for mis-interpreting your remarks.
> This is about customs clashing, not about shaking hands, my comments are about practice.


 
it is ok

about practice: when Swedes have approached me in Spain, they used words, smiles, a soft movement of the head. I knew that was going to be the way. I did the same they did.

In another ocassion I forgot their way and I approached not only with hands...I kissed one of them! he responded with another kiss (it is not a real kiss, just approaching cheeks) and the rest of them did the same, all of them kissed me. It is their custom, and theirs is not mine, but nobody refused anything.

I think these kind of situations solve quicly and easily, just to be polite is the key, for both parts. I don't find it really as clashing but as something interesting to know and learn. In the practice, not a big deal.


----------



## Joelline

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What you almost hear, Joelline, is your own reply ~ not mine.  You do me a slight injustice. But I can live with that.


 
AaaaaaaaaK!     That's me, all over: while preaching tolerance, I commit an injustice!  I apologize most sincerely.

You're right, again! I *was* hearing that little voice in my head that was saying "Bull!" ~ Admit it, Joelline, sometimes, it's just easier to go with the flow; it's just more convenient not to make waves.  You'll note that I often speak to myself in clichés!  

Best,
Joelline


----------



## maxiogee

All is well.
My sensibilities have not be stirred/shaken or otherwise roused.


----------



## emma42

Hi etcetera.  The same cannot be said of all religions.  Not all religions take their holy book to be the very word of god.  Christians don't think the New Testament is the word of god, nor do many Christians believe that the Old Testament is to be taken literally.  This is why it is acceptable amongst many Christians and Christians scholars to contradict what appears to be said in the Bible and to offer wide interpretation.  Muslims can, of course,_ *interpret*_ the Qu'ran (for example, the interpretation of the bit which talks about women having to cover their beauty), but they cannot actually question the truths (as they see it) therein.  Some Christians, for example, can say that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be taken literally, but is a parable.  A Muslim cannot take such an attitude towards his/her holy book.  Does that make sense?  I fear I am rambling.


----------



## cherine

emma42 said:
			
		

> Muslims can, of course,_ *interpret*_ the Qu'ran (for example, the interpretation of the bit which talks about women having to cover their beauty), but they cannot actually question the truths (as they see it) therein. Some Christians, for example, can say that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be taken literally, but is a parable. A Muslim cannot take such an attitude towards his/her holy book. Does that make sense? I fear I am rambling.


Speaking of "interpretation", I'd like to say that there are many schools of interpretation of the Qur'an. Each scholar can have an opinion different from this others. Do you say that for «Some Christians, for example, can say that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be taken literally, but is a parable.» Maybe you'd be interested to learn that some Muslims think the same, and some say the same about "Satan" (Le diable).
What is not to be discussed/questioned in Islam is mainly the very clear-cut commandments : this is good-this is illicit (believing in other deity but God, killing, stealing, fornicating, pork, alcoholic licours, gambling ....).
Otherwise, muslims are not only free to question, but they *are asked* to question, to study, to believe by heart and reason not just follow blindly.

The fact that Muslims don't do this is their own mistake, not that of the religion.

As for the patriarchal society thing, and women feeling "unclean", I must thank you Maxiogee for your consideration  but I'd also like to remind you that I, a female in a patriarchal society, don't feel at all inferiorated or of less value than any male. In fact I sometimes -many times actually- feel I'm a lot better than many guys, and they treat me as such. And as I said in another post : it's me who don't feel much like shaking people's hand, but when they tend their hands I don't let them down because I feel it's rude.


----------



## LV4-26

cherine said:
			
		

> Do you say that for «Some Christians, for example, can say that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be taken literally, but is a parable.»


 Good example. Not from the interpretative angle but because there are actually two narrations of the Genesis, two different texts in the Bible  (Adam and Eve participate in only one of them) and those narrations are contradictory in some respects.


----------



## moodywop

cherine said:
			
		

> Otherwise, muslims are not only free to question, but they *are asked* to question, to study, to believe by heart and reason not just follow blindly.
> 
> The fact that Muslims don't do this is their own mistake, not that of the religion.


 
That's a very interesting point, Cherine. Although this may well deserve a separate thread, what do Muslims think of this "criticism from within" by a Muslim writer in an essay in TIME?

_For too long, we Muslims have been sticking fingers in our ears and chanting "Islam means peace" to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it. Not erase or revise, just recognize it and thereby join moderate Jews and Christians in confessing "sins of Scripture," as an American bishop says about the Bible. In doing so, Muslims would show a thoughtful side that builds trust with the wider communities of the West._
(IRSHAD MANJI)


----------



## natasha2000

To Ana Raquel and Maxiogeee

I think that the Swede story has very little to do with the original question. Why? Because both parties would rather like to do as "the other does", in order to please the other party, as Ana Raquel explained, and not to impose "their own customs".

Serbs give three kisses when they kiss each other as a salutation, but they are not used to do it all the time, but only in speacial ocasions. Spanish people give two kisses to each other and they kiss all the time.
So, when I came here, I had some embarrassing situations as you, Maxiogee, described... Many times I was kissed whan I did not want to be, and moreover, I usually stayed with my third kiss in the air.... Emabarrasing, isn't it? But I did not take this so seriously as linguist took it in his example. Why? Because for me it is just different customs to which you should adapt, it is not my belief, not the essence of my life. For Linguist, it is much more serious thing, it is his religion, and he is a true and sincere believer, and he simply cannot go against his own beliefs. 

So, after sime time, I got used to "Spanish way of kissing", and at the same time I was exlaining my custom. Nowadays it happens something very different... Now Spanish people are those who stay with their third kiss in the air... They just want to please me, as Sweds wanted to please Ana Raquel...

So, what I wanted to say is that I think embarrasing situations are more likely to happen when it comes to different religions and cultures, not customs.


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> So, what I wanted to say is that I think embarrasing situations are more likely to happen when it comes to different religions and cultures, not customs.



Indeed natasha.
The Swedish thing was an unfortunate excursion from my topic.
I was focussing on "religious observance" on purpose, because it is usually more rigorously held to than custom.

That someone might place more importance on obedience to a deity than on social intercourse with a fellow human is part of what saddens me. 
Is getting to a next life really more important than getting on with each other in this one?


----------



## Etcetera

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hi etcetera. The same cannot be said of all religions. Not all religions take their holy book to be the very word of god. Christians don't think the New Testament is the word of god, nor do many Christians believe that the Old Testament is to be taken literally. This is why it is acceptable amongst many Christians and Christians scholars to contradict what appears to be said in the Bible and to offer wide interpretation. Muslims can, of course,_ *interpret*_ the Qu'ran (for example, the interpretation of the bit which talks about women having to cover their beauty), but they cannot actually question the truths (as they see it) therein. Some Christians, for example, can say that the story of Adam and Eve is not meant to be taken literally, but is a parable. A Muslim cannot take such an attitude towards his/her holy book. Does that make sense? I fear I am rambling.


It does. Now I see your point, and I can't but agree. Indeed, the Bible allows more wide interpretation and, well, sometimes it seems to even encourage questioning.


----------



## cherine

moodywop said:
			
		

> That's a very interesting point, Cherine. Although this may well deserve a separate thread, what do Muslims think of this "criticism from within" by a Muslim writer in an essay in TIME?
> 
> _For too long, we Muslims have been sticking fingers in our ears and chanting "Islam means peace" to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it. Not erase or revise, just recognize it and thereby join moderate Jews and Christians in confessing "sins of Scripture," as an American bishop says about the Bible. In doing so, Muslims would show a thoughtful side that builds trust with the wider communities of the West._
> (IRSHAD MANJI)


I do think we're a bit going off-topic, so I'll try to give a very quick and brief answer :
Thinking the religion, thinking the world, CHOOSING to believe are something; saying that the scriptures have "sins" is a very different thing. A muslim who doubts of the correctness of the Qur'an is ... (can't find a correct word, so I'll say : sinful).
The definition of faith in Islam is : believing in God, His angels, His Books, His messengers (prophets), the Judgement day. Doubting one of these means the faith/belief is... incomplete.

Trying to get back to topic  I'll remind you that beyond the unquestionable commandments, some other things in Islam get different opinions from different scholars : some think -for example- that women should not work or go out of their home (like those Taliban guys), others say that woman is before all : a person, hence she has the right or the *duty* to partake in the society's responsibilities. I go to work, deal with men, walk in the street as freely and as independently as any man.
Should I shake a man's hand when greeting? To my believes : I better not. To my personal inclinations : I'd rather not. What do I do : I start by smiling and nodding, if the man thinks it's enough as a greeting, fine. but if he proffer his hand I shake it and that's it.
If he bends to kiss... here's it's a bit too far a compromise for me, I'll sure back off, and tell him : here in Egypt we don't kiss


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Indeed natasha.
> The Swedish thing was an unfortunate excursion from my topic.
> I was focussing on "religious observance" on purpose, because it is usually more rigorously held to than custom.
> 
> That someone might place more importance on obedience to a deity than on social intercourse with a fellow human is part of what saddens me.
> Is getting to a next life really more important than getting on with each other in this one?


 
I think that for people who are sincere believers and practice their religion actively (no matter which religion is in question), the religion is not only a part of their culture, it is the way of their life, it is the fundament of their beliefs, ponts of view etc... Whole their life, their world, is based on what their religion prescribes, and trying to make them see that sometimes it is not so important to follow the rules of the Wholy Book (whichever it is), is like trying to destroy their world. I think that a Muslim and an Amish would feel in the pretty same way if you made them to do something which goes against their beliefs - Muslim to shake hands with a woman who is not family, and Amish to use a car... 

So, it is not just a simple custom, its the way of life, their own world they live in.


----------



## moodywop

cherine said:
			
		

> I do think we're a bit going off-topic, so I'll try to give a very quick and brief answer :
> Thinking the religion, thinking the world, CHOOSING to believe are something; saying that the scriptures have "sins" is a very different thing. A muslim who doubts of the correctness of the Qur'an is ... (can't find a correct word, so I'll say : sinful).
> The definition of faith in Islam is : believing in God, His angels, His Books, His messengers (prophets), the Judgement day. Doubting one of these means the faith/belief is... incomplete.


 
I agree. It is off-topic. I'll start a new thread


----------



## Ana Raquel

_Natasha2000 wrote: To Maxiogee and Ana Raquel..._

Yes Natasha, very well explained, I agree.

_maxiogeee wrote: The Swedish thing was an unfortunate excursion from my topic._ 
How tragic  I am very sorry. Just kidding. 

_maxiogee wrote. I was focussing on "religious observance" on purpose, because it is usually more rigorously held to than custom._

_still you admitted the 'custom' thing saddens you too._


_Anyway I undertsand your point:_

_maxiogee said: That someone might place more importance on obedience to a deity than on social intercourse with a fellow human is part of what saddens me. 
Is getting to a next life really more important than getting on with each other in this one?Today 11:20 AM

though I don't share it, I mean, it doesn't sadden me. _


----------

