Muslim women who won't shake your hand.

[x9200]

I'm not comparing FGM to handshakes, in jest I was poking fun at comparing someone else's cultural values to your own yardstick, but then i realized that there ARE some cultural practices that based on this day and age are just difficult to justify.

A nonsense is to comparing female genital mutilation, that most often is done not at the will to reservation in shaking someone's hand.

But this doesn't make all other people's beliefs a nonsense and a bullshit. This was the part I was after.
In a similar vein one may wonder whether some subjective beliefs and perception of freedom are good enough to justify frequent shootings in American schools.

[PNGMK]

I don't normally shake women's hands as I don't expect to them to be carrying a sword or knife.

In all seriousness I gave up even talking to Muslim women years ago much less shaking their hands (while I was married to one)... if you need the shit that their heads get filled with....

[JR8]

X9: Well, you just made a mistake in the judgement. But in this specific situation it is actually you who tries to impose some of your customs to somebody else, or not? You may see it neutral but for a person who is pre-conditioned it may be not so. This, especially if you see the religions as a manipulative tool. I see it pretty much the same so I always keep in mind that strong preconditioning is hard to overcome.
---
I wasn’t seeking to impose, from my side I was extending a basic courtesy, but then left feeling worse off for having done so. If such a person said something like ‘Oh sorry, I don’t shake hands’, then fine I’d have understood. Even if I were someone who didn’t know the religious basis for it, it would at least have stopped me standing there with their hand extended. I have some insight into the religion and it took me by surprise. How many people without an insight does such a personal belief end up insulting?... hmmm. Does the Muslim who declines to shake hands with non-Muslims know and accept the offence that belief might sometimes cause... hmmm.
I agree with your latter point, and it is a useful way to consider it.

SE: And I'll state straight up... if this woman won't shake hands because of alleged religious beliefs, then they are bullshit beliefs.
---
It’s a curious and potentially highly insulting requirement. The train of thought seems to be that shaking hands with a Muslim woman is the first step on the path towards fornication. That seems to demean both sides.

CG: ‘In this instance, your western standard of social comfort was not appropriate.’
---
Does this extend to when they are a ‘guest’ in my home or country?

SE: ‘Love your god... but quit with the sanctimonious bullshit of what your religion "requires" you to do.’
---
Agree with that. Be religious if you wish to no problem, but if ‘your desire to ingratiate yourself with a god trumps common courtesy then there is a risk of fall-out’.
Same as ‘When in Rome’. I visit a household that I know is observant Muslim, then I don’t expect alcohol/pork to be served; fine. When that person comes as a guest to my home for a meal shouldn’t the tolerance/respect be reciprocal? It’s not though, their requirements often get imposed. ... I have spent countless hours investigating ingredient substitutes for what would be considered haram ingredients. But how can you simply replace the bacon lardons (chopped pieces) in a casserole or the sherry in a trifle or Xmas pudding? Does everyone invited have to make do with eating something that’s not been prepared as best as it could be with the proper ingredients as called for? I have cooked for meals in my home, and on a couple of occasions been asked to produce two versions, one per the recipe, and one that’s halal. I indulged this a couple of times but more recently have moved nearer to a ‘If they won’t eat the meal that I’m preparing (already usually chosen and steered to what I think they might enjoy), then tell them to bring pizza/KFC’.
I’ve seen various levels with this matter. Some Muslim households where no haram items will be tolerated at all. And some where a middle path is presented. For example one household I visit say every other month for a meal, they’re a halal household but accept that enjoying a beer or glass of wine with my meal is a part of my culture. So they have no problem with me bringing my own. The courtesy goes both ways, I’ll leave the cans/bottles in the fridge in a plastic bag, so they don’t have to be ‘faced with them’ when they open the fridge door, I will be discreet in pouring them into a glass that goes on the table, and after the meal I will clear up and dispose of any empties myself (I take them home), and I usually wash up my own glass too.

I’ve seen another side of it too, the one and only time I unknowingly visited a pretty devout country during Ramadan. On several occasions during that week I was faced with having the local’s own religious rules applied to myself, but why, since I was clearly a cauc/tourist and capable of making my own choices when and whether to drink say a beer that’s listed on their restaurant menu, or (prior to quitting) enjoy a ciggie during daylight hours during Ramadan.

Thinking further... perhaps it’s the hypocrisy that come with it that strikes me ... hmmm. For example I recall an early GF of mine who is Jewish. She was most surprised when still a teen to spend a couple of months on an Israeli kibbutz (communal farm) and find some volunteers there kept bacon in the fridge, and that was apparently ‘ok’ to them if they simply referred to it as zebra. [yes really].
Or the licensed pork-butchers in Egypt, that are pitched at the Christian minority, that get fire-bombed or otherwise forced out of business.
Or the neighbourhoods in say NYC or London that have this century become popular amongst Jewish immigrants, and how they can seek to make the neighbourhood an ‘erov’ – i.e. a zone where it is permissible to break the Sabbath, simply because that neighbourhood has fishing line strung between the telegraph/lamp-poles around that neighbourhood. ‘Sharia patrols’ in a non-Muslim country is a further step along that line.

Nak:
‘Incidentally, there was this time I was leaving a gathering and this Muslim woman (wears a headscarf so that's indicative of her traditional-Muslim-ness) initiated the "kiss" from cheek to cheek (I think it's the Italian way). I don't do that even to females I'm close to but I just went along with it.’
---
I think it derives from Italy, but IIRC a couple of other countries in the region do it do, France, Spain etc. It was picked up by some elements in the UK, perhaps because it was considered ‘continental and sophisticated’, who knows. I find it fake and rather vulgar but each to their own.
Frivolous side-thought: Curious how in the Middle-East men kiss each other three times in greeting, but women won’t shake hands...

[Strong Eagle]

We are all made up of various beliefs and if they are really true I see no reason not to respect them as long as they are not actively invading my private space or deprive me from some critical needs. Also, in our culture refusing to shake already extended hand is gross and there are not that many people who could say it's not my problem. This very thread is an evidence of it.

What about the anti-gay "Christians" depriving others of their civil rights because of some stupid, allegedly "Christian" belief of which Jesus made no mention?

Or, what of the Muslim goofballs in Malaysia who have declared that women should not straddle motorcycles when riding them? Is it possible to get more stupid?

I'm fine with religion and spirituality... I've got my own version. What I'm not fine with is religious dogma borne of a bankrupt view of what religion is about. It makes no damn difference if someone is gay or not. It makes no damn difference if someone straddles a motorcycle or not. And, it makes no damn difference if you shake the hand of a man or not. The world will be far better off when we can finally divest it of these worthless religious anachronisms.

[JR8]

Apologies if I have made the point before but I can't help feel it boils down to money and 'power'. It seems several religions can get bastardised to the point of being big business, with the self-appointed proselytising their self-serving interpretations. If that is so, how 'religious' (as is selfless or noble) is that? For example who is any man (rather than a God) to interpret and ordain what I can and cannot do?

I'm left in agreement with your last point, but feeling that the selfish vested interests are too embedded for such to ever happen.

Side-thought: It reminds me of communism. Theoretically it might be an ideal or noble goal, but due to human frailties and inclinations, all you ever see played-out is some bastardised selfish and exploitative version of it.

[x9200]

We are all made up of various beliefs and if they are really true I see no reason not to respect them as long as they are not actively invading my private space or deprive me from some critical needs. Also, in our culture refusing to shake already extended hand is gross and there are not that many people who could say it's not my problem. This very thread is an evidence of it.

What about the anti-gay "Christians" depriving others of their civil rights because of some stupid, allegedly "Christian" belief of which Jesus made no mention?

Or, what of the Muslim goofballs in Malaysia who have declared that women should not straddle motorcycles when riding them? Is it possible to get more stupid?

I'm fine with religion and spirituality... I've got my own version. What I'm not fine with is religious dogma borne of a bankrupt view of what religion is about. It makes no damn difference if someone is gay or not. It makes no damn difference if someone straddles a motorcycle or not. And, it makes no damn difference if you shake the hand of a man or not. The world will be far better off when we can finally divest it of these worthless religious anachronisms.

I am with you for most of what you said above (see my part in bold). This include the gays and the women rights. In the examples you have given the religion tries to forcefully deprive other people from their important needs. No tolerance for anything like this.

For the hand shaking, agree, is on the same spectra (religion based habits and preconditions) but it is harmless and like it or not, our culture is largely based on some religion derived ethical system so to tolerate a few more weird but harmless habits won't make any difference.

If a girl wants to wear hijab, and feels in it more comfortable? Yes, no problem at all.
If somebody tries to force her to do it - no way.

Like to go to a mass every Sunday? - no problem.
You bug me or blackmail me to do this - *@^*@$#&*(

Of course it is not rational to selectively refuse to shake hands with men but our culture also has many things of similar sort.

How rational is spending (in Singapore or similar place) time outside fully dressed? Sipping drinks under umbrellas, hot early afternoon, nice restaurant, fully or half naked would definitely be more practical. How many people would feel comfortable with it? Not many. We are preconditioned this way, a worshipper and an atheist, doesn't matter.

How rational is to abstain from farting or burping in public?

How rational is to shake hands? It's a nice, friendly social gesture but it is nice, friendly and courteous because we are programmed to perceive it this way. The woman JR8 had limited pleasure to interact with was just programmed differently for a handshake involving a man.

I don't see the religious beliefs much different from any other beliefs. They are just institutionalized and have this central (the god) factor around which everything is built. The danger of the religions is not in its irrational component but the fact they are institutionalized, made systematic and by nature trying to impose all the related beliefs to everybody. It is a danger as a whole, not with every single small belief it includes.

[x9200]

Apologies if I have made the point before but I can't help feel it boils down to money and 'power'. It seems several religions can get bastardised to the point of being big business, with the self-appointed proselytising their self-serving interpretations. If that is so, how 'religious' (as is selfless or noble) is that? For example who is any man (rather than a God) to interpret and ordain what I can and cannot do?

I'm left in agreement with your last point, but feeling that the selfish vested interests are too embedded for such to ever happen.

Side-thought: It reminds me of communism. Theoretically it might be an ideal or noble goal, but due to human frailties and inclinations, all you ever see played-out is some bastardised selfish and exploitative version of it.

Yes, I think it's precisely like this. It's simply utopian based on the environment where it has to be implemented (the human or maybe the nature nature).

Besides, I also see in many religion a strong element of social engineering. With the holly books practically soaking in blood and often showing the gods as cruel, revengeful and merciless. I believe it was written this way to have a specific impact on the societies where the religions had been introduced. It was written the only language that could get through but from the contemporary perspective it should not be interpreted in any verbatim way for many of its parts. Unfortunately, many if not most believers take it literally and many other people use it as a tool to manipulate them.

[nutnut]

Jr8, stop being such a big girl! It's a cultural thing and in Malaysia you become quite accustomed to it all! Don't put out your hand to women, wait for them. It's like, always open the door for women to go first. Just add it on your list of chivalrous things to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JR8]

Jr8, stop being such a big girl! It's a cultural thing and in Malaysia you become quite accustomed to it all! Don't put out your hand to women, wait for them. It's like, always open the door for women to go first. Just add it on your list of chivalrous things to do.

Morning Nut2
Maybe that is part of the disconnect, hence my surprise. I've got a bucket of in-laws up in KL and as I haven't experienced what I described from other than 'mega-scarfie-aunties' (esp. widows it seems) I suppose I wasn't expecting it. In fact said in-laws, even one or two who are scarfies, tend to do the 'euro-kissy-kissy/hug'. So it's just me and my experience/expectations.

Anyway, no problem, each to their own. Interesting encountering new cultural facets, esp when you thought you had a pretty solid background in it, and esp when close to home-ground...

p.s. what brings you to SG... some Beerfest or similar? Have a couple for me eh?

[nutnut]

Yeah, there are people at different levels, my personal trainers wife is very hands off, I've had some who are very huggy/kissy too, it's just their preference, their husbands preference etc.

Still working the Singapore trip out, some training in the Sg office may be, but, still waiting to ensure we are on it. Will be able to say today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JR8]

their husbands preference etc.

... I'll go with this one. It sufficiently/well explains it.

[nutnut]

My preference is my wife doesn't sleep with other men, and I ain't muslim and neither is she, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Do you?

[JR8]

Heh? Maybe the 'sun has crossed the yard-arm' out your way?

[Strong Eagle]

Heh? Maybe the 'sun has crossed the yard-arm' out your way?

Had to look that one up... funny... and on target.

[JR8]

Heh? Maybe the 'sun has crossed the yard-arm' out your way?

Had to look that one up... funny.

Scene: On holiday, somewhere nice and hot, at a hotel with lots of Brits.
You leave a lazy late breakfast at 10.30am, and wander back to your room passing the swimming pool where you see some Brits you briefly chatted to the previous day. They're in their swimming costumes at the pool-side bar and already drinking beer.

You: 'Blimey, bit early to be kicking off on the beers isn't it?
Them: Oh I don't know, the sun is over the yard-arm!

[I had precisely this exchange one time I was on holiday in Egypt, hence how I learned the meaning of the expression ]