Muslim woman who refuses to shake men's hands wins case against Dutch school

I think this is a small thing. I know Orthodox Jewish people who live under similar (to me, silly) restrictions. In this case, her sensibilities are not a threat to anyone else and she should be accomodated.

It is worth comparing the deference and respect that we are used to granting to minorities, with that which is requested, or demanded, by Muslim individuals, Islamic organizations and Sharia. We should be picking our battles. If a Muslim wants to fast, or pray for a few minutes here and there, who cares? The energy that goes into challenging something like this should be spent exposing the things about Islam that truly are a threat.

If shaking hands is a sexual act, I'm seriously going to hell... ;)

This is foolish. Women are supposed to be pure and should not be obligated to shake hands with all kind of sloppy and leering guys. I go with the brainwashed ummah on this one.

Being Jewish I have interacted with religious Jews. I would never dream of shaking hands with the women.

Well, maybe she should just shake hands with the one she doesn't use for sex.

AAAAAhahahahahahahah!!!! Texan, you kill me...hahahahsnortsnort hahah

Quijybo & dennisw,

I'm with you two on this one. No one of any religion (or non-religion) should be forced to have physical contact against their will. Not only many Orthodox Jews would fall under this restriction but also Theravada Buddhist monks and some Orthodox Christian monks are under vows not to touch women in any way.

This aspect of Islam is not a threat to anyone. Neither is praying five times a day, making haj, eating halal, or worshipping any version of Allah they choose. I'll defend these purely religious actions without hesitation.

The problem with Islam is its inability to separate religion from ideology. When Muslims demand to impose Shari'a, force women into hijab against their will, forbid apostacy, execute heretics, and wage war against the Dar al-Harb, those are the aspects of Islam we must resist completely.

This is cultural, not religious.

She should get no breaks for that false premise.

The Dutch culture is one way of doing things: -peaceful, broadminded, affable. They shake hands. Because they're sailors at heart. They'll help you aboard.

The specific branch of throwback Islam that this 'teacher to be' follows is simply another culture. It has no place in Holland.

If she wishes to join in the mainstream of her adopted country, and not teach at a Muslim school, she needs to behave as the people in the Netherlands do.

Or go a Muslims-only education route.

But, in the publis realm:

No accomodation to religious quirks.

Of any faith.

It opens up nothing but Pandora, squared.

This is silly. I have no objection to the normative custom of not touching the hands of someone other than a husband, as in orthodox judaism and other religions.

For instance, orthodox judaism, more stringent in it's koshering- halal being a poor copy- doesn't demand others not enjoy pork or non kosher food. The idea is that the food is ritually impure, for a jew.

Here- there may be no real problem with muslims at all- but- the burdern is now decidedly upon muslims to show the patriotism and demand the homicidists are nothing of what they are. They haven't even remotely demonstrated, that- the 'moderates' know better than to stand up to the 'faithful' who would slaughter them as easily as an infidel. This I bring up, not because it's so rare- but because it so much isn't.

Mark

there is too much touching between men and women in secular society. the touch brings up feelings that involve the primitive (most ancient) parts of the brain and undermines the sexual disciplines needed for a child-oriented society.

our friend at faithfreedom.org also calls for greater conservatism in the west. i suspect that a defense against islam requires a change, because just plain folks in pakistan and elsewhere see the effects on western society and say, "God, they really ARE infidels."

What infidels remain in Holland should just get it over with, put the nooses around their necks, and hop from step-stool under the old oak tree.

The joke would then be on the Dutch Moslems, cuz who would do the work? Who would fund all those welfare checks and free apartments and other Marxist giveaways?

Hell, the first thing they'd do is retain George and Bill Frist as consultants to bring in 20 million Mexicans and Central Americans immigrants, legally, to get some work done.

"No one of any religion (or non-religion) should be forced to have physical contact against their will." I do agree, though not on regigious grounds

"This aspect of Islam is not a threat to anyone."

It is a threat if it becomes so widespread that women behaving and dressing in western ways are seen as willing sexual targets, as in the Paris suburbs! This should not become a norm.

" the touch brings up feelings that involve the primitive (most ancient) parts of the brain "

What??? Speak for yourself. A good, firm handshake between colleagues or business partners is an ancient western custom expressing trust. The very fact that women now share this tradition says 'we're equals, we're here to work, we're here to be respected for our skills'.

People who read sexual stuff into the work environment, including the handshake, need to get themselves a proper sexlife and need to stop seeing people foremost as sexual beings.

there is too much touching between men and women in secular society. - Still Breathing

I'm clearly living in the wrong part of secular society. Thank heaven for all that polite-but-haram hand-shaking. ;)

i suspect that a defense against islam requires a change, because just plain folks in pakistan and elsewhere see the effects on western society and say, "God, they really ARE infidels."

Honestly, I sympathize with your contempt for the "touchy-feely" nature of modern society in general, but because it's fake, insincere, and therefore awkward.

However, other cultures are notorious for involving much more physical contact and proximity: Many an American tourist is said to have gotten the heebie-jeebies in Europe due varying customs of how close one ought to stand to whoever one is talking to. And recall that, in general, the Europeans find us Americans to be prudes.

And, consider the Mideast-- the custom of men holding hands came under scrutiny in the US when Bush observed Saudi cheek-kissing and hand-holding customs when one of their royals visited the Crawford ranch. It's well documented that, under such strict segregation of the sexes, together with the wholesale vilification of women, leads to rampant homosexuality in countries like Saudi Arabia, which would like us to believe they don't swing that way.

And it's downhill from there:
"The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror" - by Jamie Glazov:
http://www.nospank.net/glazov.htm

So the notion that the Mideast, or any part of the world, has a monopoly on chastity to the exclusion of another is one I can't agree with.

Lili- apropo your comments- I'm a westerner- raised lightly religious, and I like a handshake as well as anyone.

Hower- I understand the world, and especially the good stuff that comes down for thousands of years. The idea of modesty is involved with this orthodox jewish observance. It means that a man- accepts- as does a women, that they will not spuriously contact other than her husband, and close family members. That does not preclude, being warm, making eye contact, using language skills to bring closeness and warmth to any relationship outside the marriage and immediate family relationship. In fact- the challenge is to bring closeness and honesy to other relationships as opposed to sweating to the oldies with everyone you meet.
Do you get the drift? Your modern way- and go to any tavern on Friday night and glad hand your way thru the bar. How warm does it feel? Or rather are you on your guard, as eyes wander around aimlessly, longingly and lovelessly. Not bad- just not something all that marvelous.

The religious view of marriage for 3300 yrs, and the example that once the bonds are sealed, mandates closeness, not just mindless sexuality, but closeness- family- commitments, oaths of commitment and caring- and if you don't subscribe fine.

The first time I came across an orthodox girl who didn't offer up chummy physicality to my college advances- yet had more ability to discuss, get inside and consider our connection, or lack thereof, I was impressed. Not everyone can be so impressive as that one was years ago for me, and sometimes they simply stand on ceremony and are nothing about being impressive.

But it is a good custom that bespeaks oaths of conduct, of kindness, of closeness, of caring and charity.

Now- take this as a handshake from me to you :^))

Mark

"And that accommodation, of course, is all one way."

I think that is an unfair assesment. The very fact that a woman takes on a job in a teaching position is a compromise. And judging from the story she wont be wearking a burqa or veil either, so thats another.

The very fact that a woman takes on a job in a teaching position is a compromise. And judging from the story she wont be wearking a burqa or veil either, so thats another.

Posted by: ExpatriateDK at March 28, 2006 11:32 PM

Muslims can stay in their ghettos, instead of comin to 'Infidel' lands and making pathetic excuses. Noone is holding a gun (or a sword) to their heads, if you know what I mean...

I'm also going to have to side with the Muslim chick on this one.

This issue came up in a news item a year or more ago. As a religiously observant Jew, I posted the following: Shaking Hands with the Opposite Gender.

As I mentioned then, I, too, avoid shaking hands with the opposite gender, just as my wife does.

However, we were both brought up to avoid embarrassing someone's feeling under these circumstances. So that if someone of the opposite sex would extend their hand expecting a handshake, I would indeed greet it, rather than make them feel insulted, embarrassed or confused.

Yes, many of you will howl and growl.

Once upon a time, a gentleman would not have offered to shake hands with a lady. He would have waited for her to extend her hand before he offered his own. If the lady declined to do so, for whatever reason, no handshake took place, and no one was offended. It was called etiquette; we learned it in grammar school, and I think it was preferable to today's compulsory indiscriminate handshaking. It would have saved a bit of trouble in this case too.

As an observant Jew, I wouldn't shake hands either. I resent having it implied that both my patriotism and my sexuality are therefore suspect. The article doesn't say that this woman objected to others shaking hands in her presence, only that she did not wish to do so. For once, I am completely sympathetic to her needs.

The proponents here of Victorianish etiquette are missing the mark. It's irrelevant what kind of society you might wish for, or pine nostalgically for. The point here -- as with the recent cartoon controversy -- is whether we support a society where women are free to be as promiscuous as they want to be (within reason of course), or whether we support some kind of "religious police". Of course, even our wild & crazy Infidel West has limits and, after a fashion, our police are at times acting as moral police, but only in terms of balancing that with rationally allowing the maximum freedom. Does our balance of freedom and limits have flaws? Of course. Any living, breathing, freely progressing society will have plenty of flaws.

The difference between the Victorianish posters here and that Muslim woman, however, should not be lost: that Muslim woman supports and enables a culture that does not believe in the freedom for a woman to touch, or not touch, whomever she wants. Meanwhile, that Muslim woman is living in a non-Muslim country and enjoying its prosperity and benefits, probably because she doesn't want to suffer the inferiority and corruption of her own Muslim country (an inferiority and corruption that, of course, is not the fault of Islam but of Jews and the West). In that context, that Muslim woman is wrong.

With all that said, however, our Western laws do not really have a mechanism to avoid decisions like this Dutch Equal Treatment Commission made in her favor, since her particular religious irrationality is subtle enough not to be egregious in that context, and our tendency to protect minorities strongly trumps other considerations. The least we can do as members of non-Muslim societies is point out that this Muslim woman takes seriously a silly, irrational and dangerous culture that, in this particular isolated case -- for our Victorianish posters here -- stands for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

I guess if I see a Muslim woman drowning the only right thing to do is throw her the nearest object which floats and watch.

I agree with Television. Regardless of where one stands on shaking hands, what the above judgement will end up doing is giving Muslims a sense of victory, and that is always a bad thing. Just as the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was good in itself for the anti-Communist coalition in the Cold War, the side effect was to give Islam a historic high over the perception that it was a major contributor to the collapse of the world's largest country and one of the two major superpowers. Nothing has fed that ego like this one has. Similarly, the NATO bombing of Serbia - for whatever reasons - again ended up emboldening Mohammedans. Again, wrong message.

There are a lot of cultures where people of the opposite gender not married to each other do not shake hands. That is irrelevant to the topic on hand. By handing this Muslim woman a victory, this is going to be perceived as a victory for Islam over Infidel practices (and Mohammedans aren't going to go over the nuances of old world niceties, much less complement Orthodox Jews for making available this opening for them.) Given the events that have taken place in Europe so far this year, it is important to roll back the Islamic societal conquests, and in that light, this decision is an emphatic move in the wrong direction.

Don't let your eyes off the ball. The ball is Islam.

Thanks Infidel Pride -- I forgot to mention a key factor you pointed out: the symbolic effect this has in our current climate. With this particular case, though, I don't think we have much of a choice, since she is using our system that rationally protects minorities with a particular isolated religious habit that is not egregious enough (and doesn't interfere with her work enough) for us to make a case against (as many Western societies have been able to do, for example, with Muslim women trying to have photo licenses taken while covering their faces).

Mark, the idea of 'modesty' revolves around the assumption that all members of the opposite gender are potential sexual partners whom one must not stimulate or provoke. The problem is that the stimulation or provokation can be read into just about anything a woman does, to the extent where in some countries, as we know, women can hardly leave the house and must be completely veiled.

A similar problem arose at Cronulla, where it seems that Lebanese men saw women in swimsuits as automatic sexual targets.

To me the idea of a handshake being some kind of sexual provokation is very insulting, actually.

In a civilised society, I expect to be able to even go to a nudist beach and be there simply as a human being and left in peace, whether I look sexually attractive to some people or not.

In a civilised society, nobody should be assumed to be sexually inviting in any circumstance (even, for instance, sharing a bed) without a clear, unmistakeable sexual invitation. And even then, the invitation can be ended at any time either partner chooses, in which case the sexual activity must immediately stop.

A pretty simple concept really. And the idea that women must hide and cringe and control their every movement in case they sexually provoke someone is the sign of an uncivilised society in which men are thugs without any self-control.

Sorry if that insults orthodox people of any religion, but if they can't handle seeing free, comfortable human bodies and take a few handshakes, they might need their hormone levels checked.

I agree with those posters advocating the decision to uphold her claim.

I have had instances before where I didn't want to shake hands with individuals, for various reasons, but have felt compelled to.

Now I am not a shy person when it comes to physical contact, such as a hand shake, but imagine if you were the sort of person who absolutely dreads the thought of touching another person. This can be for various reasons. It could be for religious reasons. It could equally be that the person has a phobia (maybe teaching isn't the job for you in that case) of physical contact.

The Dutch Equal Treatment Commission's decision to uphold her complaint was the correct one, but as someone said before, for the wrong reasons.

Muslim groups will now, in my opinion, see this as another victory over us and they will only look to the religious argument for the decision.

The Dutch Equal Treatment Commission should have made it clear to all concerned that their decision to uphold the complaint was down to individual rights to avoid contact and has nothing to do with her religious views in this instance. She would have won, but not for the reasons she wanted.

Unfortunately it seems she did win because of her religious belief.

The article also said:

It warned that Dutch schools risk excluding Muslim women from society unless they find a way to accommodate their beliefs.

Again, the onus seems to be on us to accommodate them……or at least that is how people will read into it.

Hang on a minute isn't she discriminating against men and thus shouldn't she be dealt with under anto discrimination laws.
If not how about if I decided I didn't want to shake hands with say, black people how would that be treated?
Oh I forgot - she's a Muslim so is entitled to special treatment recognising all her prejudices as sacrosanct.
Utter lunacy.

I suppose that a statute like Title VII would have the same effect.
Are there any attorneys who can guess as to how such a claim would fare under US law?

Well, to be fair, Asians are very circumspect about touching, particularly the Chinese and Japanese. Hand shaking isn't done in those countries but, if it means doing business with westerners, they usually accommodate.

Lili, you've become a pedant with your assertions, I am afraid.
First- Again,I was referring to the religious Jewish custom and belief, not the Islamic. The difference seems to have escaped your noting- there is nothing applied to you, that you must do by them, as opposed to muslims, who take the precepts and carry that and many others to 'infidels' who must be subordinate. A critically important difference, and not one of a grey zone.

Why do I bring that up? Because it is you demanding fealty from a religious jew to act as you, and that is quite similar to the edict of the muslim. Congratulations.

Now- let's go over what you asserted.
"...A pretty simple concept really. And the idea that women must hide and cringe and control their every movement in case they sexually provoke someone is the sign of an uncivilised society in which men are thugs without any self-control.
Sorry if that insults orthodox people of any religion, but if they can't handle seeing free, comfortable human bodies and take a few handshakes, they might need their hormone levels checked."

No.... you are incorrect. They have every right to not go to that beach and choose to stay away from places where others may make them feel uncomfortable with their own children. In other words, they are not imposing anything on you- will not riot, will not attack, and never have.

But you are sneering at them, because you want to right, to show them how you feel. Well aren't you just the liberated one.
good, they'd say- show it to anyone you like- just not them, and in front of their kiddies. They'll leave, since they never force you too.

Oh... and the women don't hide and cringe, as you assert- not if they're healthy and happy. They simply have to focus, their sensuality and sexuality- again- this doesn't apply to you and nothing of it applies to you. It is simply modesty- one which you deny them, calling them inferior. They are not. Nor are you superior. Do you see what I'm driving at?

You say, all unwanted sexual invitations can stop. Fine. So do they- they don't regard a handshake as sex- they say it imposes familiarity better served by talking, eye contact, expression, ideas, and warmth. Not touch. Touch is reserved for their preferred use with family, children, husbands and wives. They have much much lower divorce, incest, and violence rates in regards to these social problems. But again, no imposition upon the rest of us is ever implied- except the modesty factor.

Except for you- you demand they make your ideas the only ideas of merit- and thus- it is you forcing others to believe as you.
Welcome to the world of cultic invasion of privacy :^)

"...To me the idea of a handshake being some kind of sexual provokation is very insulting, actually." you say.

To me, the idea that you are simply enough to think that a handshake is viewed by them as sexual provocation is very insuliting, actually.

You think these are simple folks, not up to your level of sophistication. You are dead wrong- and presumptuous, and pretentious.

Your presumptions assume others must act like you in this way.
You think you are better than them. You are most certainly not.

You ignored some of what I said, about meeting one such women years ago, and her warmth and womanlyness was dammed apparent to me. But she was playing for way higher stakes and my losey goosey manners were facile compared to her goals and dreams. She was not at all uptight. When she politely and WARMLY refused my handshake with a delightful smile- she laughed a womanly kindly laugh- but never lost eye contact. She wanted to know me, and invited me with her eyes to engage her. In that regard, she was more open, more delightful than I.

You should get out more and see the world. And don't pretend you have to remake everyone in your image. That's a kind of tyranny, and you are asserting your right to impose that upon everyone.

Once again, in the case of muslims, I have no problems giving them the courtesy of rules of 'modesty' without judging that they, in their worst iterations- treat women as dangerous vaginas, to be controlled. The Jewish view is not that at all. It is much much different. But you have to think about how do these things apply in the real world.

Again- the idiotic banks of England didn't allow piggy banks- last year- a sign of surfeit, frugality, family caring and savings- since muslims would be 'offended' Scream that.

Jews have much more stringent koshering laws, and the pig isn't impure- it's ritually impure. So have a ham sandwich,stick the money int he piggy bank- jews have them too- and consider the differences in the customs.

Oh, and If I go to a naked beach, my wife will kill me- but I assure you, I will shake your hand, and shamelessly think - Thank you.

Mark

Oh, Lil, one more thing....

"....Mark, the idea of 'modesty' revolves around the assumption that all members of the opposite gender are potential sexual partners whom one must not stimulate or provoke. "

It is ironic that you insist that considering others as sexual partners is so gauche and absurd. Well, look at the modernists, and all the evolutionists and then where do they extrapolate the need for humans to be more open, sexual, freely sexual- from the argument that we are all sexual partners like animals.

Which is in that contest- true.
The Torah recognizes that but attempts to elevate that urge and refine it and make it whole, in context of family, love, devotion, caring, endearment, patience, effort- yada yada. In other words my dear

The first document, so far as I'm aware of, that protects a married women, is the 'Ketuba' which guarentees that a women must be cared for life, after a divorce unless she remarries. Also, the modesty bit, of religious jews, by 'custom' 3300 yrs ago, assumed it was the women's privilege to receive pleasure, and also to refuse it, if too dammed tired to be interested- not the man's for the taking. Nice ideas.

Again, none of us are forced in any way- to subscribe to any of this. Which is nice. It makes it much more understandable.

I believe that the problem isn't really understood by you, and I think frankly, if it isn't too forward, you should reexamine your motives.

Regards
Mark

Lili says, "People who read sexual stuff into the work environment, including the handshake, need to get themselves a proper sexlife and need to stop seeing people foremost as sexual beings."

Ideas like that remind me of a teenage girl who cannot for the life of her imagine why she needs to be modest; after all, SHE doesn't feel anything but free! But many men (probably most) and especially young men do think of women they meet in a sexual context. You wish that weren't the case, and you may even argue strenuously that SURELY it isn't REALLY true or that there is something wrong with a man who sees you as an erotic object, etc. etc. I am sorry, as I am sorry to tell the teenage girl: the sexual emotions of a man are in play a lot of the time; that's where the habits of traditionalists of many persuasions come from.

Women's liberation has its benefits. It also has its costs; and to the extent that Christian society is not reproducing or is creating masses of children who lack the benefits of a secure homelife, the costs may be what history remembers about these few decades.

A more child-oriented society would adapt something like the Indian "namaste" greeting (hands as in prayer, facing front) between men and women.

While I strongly side with this woman's right not to be touched, I will add this caveat...

When Dutch Equal Treatment Commission "warned that Dutch schools risk excluding Muslim women from society unless they find a way to accommodate their beliefs" it did the right thing but for the wrong reason.

The Commission should have simply ruled that no person in a teaching position can be forced to engage in unnecessary physical contact with another adult for any reason and left it at that.

This seems a slippery slope away from muslims refusing to deal with non-muslims in other areas. I think that is the main point. What about the cab driver that refuses to transport a women? And how does the taxi payment happen if the man and women refuses to touch? Will it go to the muslim country way of women not being allowed to travel alone? In Nigeria the government ruled that women can no longer ride a taxi. Can you imagine New York? Buses for men, buses for women? Taxi's only for men?

As far as handshakes in general, some form of acknowledgement needs to occur. Is there any acknowledgement in muslim countries between men and women? It seems like the woman does not get any acknowledgement. When meeting a group of people should you just go down the line looking each one in the eye as acknowledgement? Or bow? Or nod? Or curtsey? Most find a handshake gives a measure of the other man, a symbol of trust given. The 'here's my hand, I don't have a knife', origins.

I see this as just another way to force all cultures to meet religious norms. Can't she just wear white gloves? How is someone supposed to know whether to offer a handshake or not? Look for a veil? Never shake anyone's hand again?

And, since so many posters mentioned their jewish beliefs. - Not making judgement, just observations, but I find it interesting how similar the fundamental jewish and muslim traditions are. The traditional jewish woman covers her hair with a wig ( which seems VERY silly to me as a non-religious person, I mean hair is hair, and yes, I know the religious reasoning behind it) and wears long sleeves and long skirts (which seems reasonable for modesty but not for comfort). And the similar facial hair required and the head covering by the men. The required seperation of the genders. And that there has been no change allowed, no modern movement.

And, don't get in a twist, but I have worked in a "Jewish" part of town and the religous treated the non-religious in an openly condecending manner at times. A very few showing hostility towards the non-jews openly, also. I consider it a matter of fundamentalist teaching and bad manners, but it also seems to come from the very religious believing that they are the 'chosen' by god. Others are wrong AND below them. It seems that the muslims have this notion and these mannerisms in the extreme. The main difference was the treatment of the women. While the rituals seemed debasing to women (from an outsiders perspective), the treatment of the women, in general seemed to be respectful if not fully equal. But it is also the first time I met someone in an arranged marriage.

"excluding muslim women from society"~ isn't that the whole point of islam?

To the physically fastidious posters above: you may rightfully expect the support of moderns such as Lili and myself for a society structured by a legal system that fully respects your freedom to be physically fastidious (since, if I may speak for Lili, we can tell the difference between Muslims on the one hand, and Orthodox Jews and others who are physically fastidious for their religious reasons on the other hand); but don't expect us to change our opinion that such physical fastidiousness -- particularly based on religious texts of any flavor -- is silly and irrational. Such an expectation is just as rude as one from our side expecting you to change your opinion and join our more insouciant sensibilities. Different strokes for different folks.

However, there is a key underlying point here: The overarching system of ensuring a balance of maximum freedom with reasonable limitations will -- insofar as our society is a living, breathing, changing organism and not a static model based on a fixed norm from the past -- of necessity tend to favor, on a public level, those of us who value insouciance over prudity. That's the price of freedom and mystery, much as it might rankle those nostalgic for the good old frozen days.

Men over the age of 12?! In any way analogous to women over the age of 6, or perhaps 9? Hmm.

So a man shaking hands with a woman is taboo but there's no problem with a 54 year old man who gets his sexual kicks with a 9 year old girl?

Lili's comment about the handshake being a sexual provocation seems to come from the over the age of 12 limit, which represents the age of sexual maturity. Provocation, possibly not, but the sexual connection seems clear.
mgoldberg's response to Lili's post had a very condescending attitude throughout the entire post putting words into the response that were not in the post that was being responded to but instead assumed. I went back and reread it twice.

The main problem with the article is that an employer has no right to require an employee to meet current standards without threat of a lawsuit. Employers are required to change everything they can to accomodate anyone who wants to be hired. Employers should be able to dictate their terms of employment. If their terms become unfavorable after employment, that's different.

This is another victory for the 'religious right' of islam.

Kind of like the guy who applied for a job as a pizza delivery man but was not hired. In his suit the fact that he has no drivers licence is briefly mentioned but not considered when the suit is decided in his favor. Even though the pizza place says this is a requirement for employment the judge says he can always walk.
Well, not really, but you get the point.

Some will apply for a job they know they can't get just to try the system. There is a racket going on that does just that. Then the suit collects back wages the person would have received if they had worked. People who only filled out applications and never even got an interview and felt rejected and hurt. Like the people who read the papers looking for classified ads to bring lawsuit against.

This is indeed a 'win' for islam. More of the chiping away.

OT~ a social worker recently did a home visit to a muslim woman. Her husband "insisted" this female social worker do her visit in the bedroom. With the husband in the room. Her job requires her to have a private interview. He would not allow it. And the interview in the bedroom! The social worker was extrememly uncomfortable but did her job. How far does all this have to go before we can say enough!

... the pig isn't impure- it's ritually impure.

Bless you, my son. Will be my sales agent over at the Pentagon purchasing department? They quit taking my calls.

"Physical contact" is not the point. This woman is not shrinking from shaking hands because she fears germs a la Howard Hughes. She refuses to shake hands with men because in Islam, she is one man's chattel possession, and to shake hands with another man would be, to her, the equivalent of granting sexual access to her person. She is, at the core of her ideology, nothing more than a sexual receptacle sworn to one delivery device. That is what she believes.

Stop dancing around the real issue. Any faith practice which requires a woman's abjuration of any physical contact with anyone other than her husband assumes a chattel relationship, regardless of sweet and lyrical proverbs, psalms, verses, and suras. At least Islam only requires such abjuration and the hijab from women; ultra orthodox Judaism shaves their heads.

"it is you demanding fealty from a religious jew to act as you"

Mark, this is an absolute lie. I clearly stated that nobody should have to touch any person against their will. But this should be an individual decision, not a religious imposition.

Mark, you have used personally insulting and unnecessary terms in debating my points. I will now no longer debate with you for that reason (you can check previous threads for proof that I will debate any point with a polite opponent). You certainly haven't persuaded me on any of your points, and the personal insults didn't help your argument.

Borg wrote "This seems a slippery slope away from muslims refusing to deal with non-muslims in other areas. I think that is the main point." I agree.

"but don't expect us to change our opinion that such physical fastidiousness -- particularly based on religious texts of any flavor -- is silly and irrational."

Thank you Television, you did speak for us both.

Wow. Where do I start?

Let's start with cultural differences.

An action may be positive in one culture, and negative in another culture. Unless you are in the habit of forcing your customs on others, then respect the fact that they may not celebrate the same holidays or perform the same rituals ( such as shaking hands ) that you do. You may not understand why they are different, but you should be able to cope. All of this within reason, and it should be mutual. If two people wish to shake hands, then let them do it. Just because it is not ok in your beliefe system, doesn't give you the right to prevent it.

ok, religion.
In Islam, the women is precious and highly honored. She does not just give herself away and advertise her body parts for just anyone to see. Rather, she reserves that for the partner she chooses. Understand that some countries have corrupted this principle into a way to make women a second-class citizen. Islam does not prevent a woman from going to school, to work, travelling alone, being president, or any such nonsense. No, the blame for this lies squarely on the shoulders of men who have created and enforced these rules and then twisted the Koran, Hadith, and Sunnah in such a way as to try and justify them.

On a side note, Muslims do not bow to anyone, as they believe bowing indicates one person is inferior to others, and Islam holds that all people are equal, so therefore they do not bow to each other, but rather only bow to god ( notice the movements during Muslim prayer, aka Salat ).

En sum, for the single males in this forum, you will have to get into a Muslim woman's head long before you can get into anything else. Yep, deep discussions, long dating cycle, and ( omg ) commitment.

So fortezza, you're saying muslims put women on a pedastile?

hehe....hehehe....hehehehehehehehheheheheheheheh

Cute. But let me give the late Christopher Lasch the last word, though the idea is a bit off topic. Something like this: "It is an unworthy goal to eliminate the tension between men and women. The object is to live with it more graciously than has been done in the past."

"it is you demanding fealty from a religious jew to act as you"- me

"....Mark, this is an absolute lie. I clearly stated that nobody should have to touch any person against their will. But this should be an individual decision, not a religious imposition."

Well thank you for deciding what the human race should do to meet your standards. You've now ended discussion. People who walk out in a huff claiming they've been insulted, usually around here, are the muslim one's who think they've been unfairly attacked.

You are the other variety. The know it all- forgive me- I can't help but be frank. You know that there can be no freedom for a person to choose what they want, based on their choice of an age old, time tested, historically viable, meaningfull, wholesome custom- because you fine that an imposition.

So walk away- you argue poorly, you leave in a huff, pouting- and
frankly, Oh and pouting- your last comment- about you changing your opinion- I said, I had no interest in changing your opinion of what you should or shouldn't do.

Just leave you smelly handshake that you're going to force on some poor soul who's standing there with you pushing your paw in his face, will be indiscrete and pointless.

But then anythings possible Lily. Hell.

I bet you jump in where I comment with someone. I'll ask you to keep your promises. It's so rare for people to be sincere these days.

One simple principle all young people need to know:

"Whatever we wear, wherever we go:
Yes means Yes and No means NO."

"In Islam, the women is precious and highly honored. She does not just give herself away and advertise her body parts for just anyone to see. Rather, she reserves that for the partner she chooses."

How many times must we hear this da'wa nonsense, recycled straight from the same "respectful" clerics who then advise on how to properly beat your wife if you "fear disobedience," restrict her movements, deny her full attention and resources as a spouse, and reject her basic rights such as court testimony and inheritance? No Koran verses or hadiths are "twisted" to come up with this oppression. It's right there in the originals for anyone with eyes to see.

And on the side note, an elegant bow of attention and true respect, such as the Japanese or English traditions, simply cannot be compared to the buttocks-hoisted carpet groveling of Islamic practice. Slaves of Allah indeed.