/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Muslim teacher suspended over handshake



sonz
09-09-2006, 07:36 AM
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- Officials at a school in the Netherlands are trying to decide what to do about a female Muslim teacher who refuses to shake hands with men.

The unnamed teacher is currently under suspension. Her action caught officials at Vader Rijn College in Utrecht by surprise. This is her second year at the school but the first time she has invoked the handshake ban, which she says is in line with her religious beliefs.

The school says this is unacceptable on the job where teachers are supposed to be a good model for the students, Expatica reports.

School director Bart Engbers said the woman can do what she wants to at home but not at school. "Religious and political flag-waving," he told Expatica, "must stay at home."

And, so must she, too, until the school gets a ruling on the matter.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...8-034702-6192r
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
glo
09-09-2006, 07:39 AM
Women are not allowed to shake hands with men?
Out of interest, how do men and women greet each other or acknowledge each others presence?

Thanks. :)
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 07:41 AM
we say 'Asalamu alaikum' (peace be unto you) without touching.

unless... ofcourse they happen to be mahram (e.g. brother/sis daughter/father niece/uncle etc...)

mahram = relatives whom for example a woman dont hav to wear hijab infront of.

:)
Reply

glo
09-09-2006, 07:43 AM
Thanks, whatever. :D

Are you allowed to look at each other (i.e. have eye contact)?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
sonz
09-09-2006, 07:46 AM
men are also not allowed to shake hands with the opposite non-mahram (nonrelative people)

they greet each other without any physicial contact

she is only allowed handshake if its really a must

chk this


Q
As-Salamu `alaykum. I refuse to shake hands with men who are non-maharem, but the problem is that most of the time people are not aware of this fact and believe that shaking hands is normal. So, when a man wants to shake hands with me, I refuse and my family say that my refusal makes these men ill at ease, and, therefore, I should not refuse because it is not polite. I disagree with them because what matters is to obey Allah and not human beings. So, what should I do? Most of the time I avoid being in the same place with non-mahrem men not to face this problem. Should I shake hands and then explain my reasons or should I not shake hands and then explain?
A
Dear questioner, we are greatly pleased to receive your question which shows the confidence you place in us. May Allah reward you abundantly for your interest in knowing the teachings of Islam!

Originally, the best option when it comes to shaking hands among members of the opposite sex is that one avoids doing so; especially when there are any moral qualms about it.

In case, there is no fear of temptation, and at the same time shaking hands is a customary practice in a certain society or community, then one may get over with it. The issue is, by and large, judged by one’s conscience.

Responding to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:

This is one of those issues one should decide based on one’s conscience and the circumstances. It is best for us to avoid shaking hands with members of the opposite sex in case there are any moral qualms about it. It is best that we do what our conscience tells us; we can always explain our position later.

If, however, you are okay with it, and there is nothing to suggest a source of temptation, then you may just get over with it, especially in a society or group where it is a custom. The latter would be the case if we are dealing with societies where shaking hands with everyone, regardless of male and female differences, is customary.

It is in the last mentioned case that even some of the jurists of the early times considered shaking hands with females as permissible, provided there is no temptation factor involved. Imam Ibrahim An-Nakh`ie was of this view, as is reported from him.

So decide for yourself; if it bothers you, then don’t do it. But if you are faced with a society where it is considered strange and unfriendly not to do so, then just do it and get over with it.

Having said this, however, I must rush to add that in Islamic societies nurtured by the sound teachings of Islam, it should not pose a problem for you if you were to refuse to shake hands with men. For in this case, the latter rather than the former, is the norm.
Reply

Malaikah
09-09-2006, 07:56 AM
:sl:

^WHAT?? since when did custom come before halal and haram??

good on the women for refusing too, mashaallah
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 08:16 AM
she is only allowed handshake if its really a must
yeh.. only if she's srsly threatened with death if she doesnt shake... that's the only exception i know of.

Are you allowed to look at each other (i.e. have eye contact)?
Allah tells the believers to lower our gazes when it comes to looking at opposite gender because it is better for them.

hope that helps :)
salamz
Reply

rubiesand
09-09-2006, 08:44 AM
Lest anyone think it is only Muslims who refrain from handshaking with the opposite gender, it is also observed among certain Jewish communities.
A Jewish person who will not touch a member of the opposite sex is called 'shomer negiah'

Negiah (נגיעה meaning "contact" or "connection" or "touch" in Hebrew) is a notion in Jewish law (Halakha) that restricts (or forbids) physical contact with, or touching of, a member of the opposite sex (particularly in an erotic manner), except for one's spouse, and immediate family (children and parents). A person who abides by this code of conduct is colloquially described as a shomer negiah ("observant [of] negiah") or, more informally, is shomer ("guards" or "keeps" the law).

This law is mentioned in the Talmud (Tractate Sabbath 12:2) and is codified in the Shulkhan Arukh ("Code of Jewish Law") Even Ha'ezer 21.

Like most laws, the prohibition of negiah is waived to save the life of a person who is in danger.

Physicians and dentists may touch the opposite gender in their course of healing


Source
Reply

IceQueen~
09-09-2006, 08:58 AM
I read once that whenh the prophet (saw) took bay'ah from women he covered his hand with a cloth...but i'm not sure ...
I also heard he only shook men's hands...
Reply

Trumble
09-09-2006, 09:06 AM
I can't see anything other than a sexist motivation for the difference between men and women, but if that's they way it is in Islam and the teacher is happy with that, so be it.

I can't see why anybody should be forced to shake hands with anybody if they don't wish to. I think the "officials" are wrong purely on the grounds of personal liberty and freedom of choice, rather than religious discrimination.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 09:13 AM
I can't see anything other than a sexist motivation for the difference between men and women, but if that's they way it is in Islam and the teacher is happy with that, so be it.
how is it sexist :?

sexism is when one gender looks down on another by means of action or something.. Islam forbids touching non-Mahram relatives and encourages lowering the gaze to avert ne temptation which could lead on to other things...

its not like preventing shaking hands puts men at any higher position than women, it's a ruling that has equal implication on both genders.... same goes for lowering gaze, it's respect, not sexism!
Reply

~Stranger~
09-09-2006, 09:14 AM
I can't see why anybody should be forced to shake hands with anybody if they don't wish to. I think the "officials" are wrong purely on the grounds of personal liberty and freedom of choice, rather than religious discrimination.
exactly...
I read once that whenh the prophet (saw) took bay'ah from women he covered his hand with a cloth...but i'm not sure ...
I also heard he only shook men's hands...
yes the prophet never shook any women's hands... in my community, wome cover thier hands with a cloth when they shake hands of non mahrams alhamdulillah

may Allah ease it on this sister
Reply

glo
09-09-2006, 09:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Marya
I read once that whenh the prophet (saw) took bay'ah from women he covered his hand with a cloth...but i'm not sure ...
I also heard he only shook men's hands...
If anybody felt compelled to cover his hand with a cloth before shaking mine, I'd be so offended! :uuh: :(

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, when I hear stuff like that ... :heated:
Reply

sonz
09-09-2006, 09:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I can't see anything other than a sexist motivation for the difference between men and women, but if that's they way it is in Islam and the teacher is happy with that, so be it.
sexist??? how is it sexist since the rule applies to both men and women.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 09:22 AM
^ i think i heard taht too.. refer to http://www.islamicboard.com/482026-post17.html

glo u get offended coz ur looking at it from perspectiv that the one who does that hass omething against u.. checkout the thread about freemixing on this forum it should explaini n more detail..

lol as sum1 here put it:

One of the brothers used to tell ladies when they stretch their hands: "I can't shake hands with you unless you're very ugly or very old and I don't believe you fit in any of these categories".
;)

salams
Reply

glo
09-09-2006, 09:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lolwatever
^ i think i heard taht too.. but that was the only case coz it was a formal bay'3ah... other than that case, shaking hands isn't on, with/without cover.

glo u get offended coz ur looking at it from perspectiv that the one who does that hass omething against u.. checkout the thread about freemixing on this forum it should explaini n more detail..

lol as sum1 here put it:



:lol:
salams
LOL, that's a funny quote. :)

Whatever, don't get me wrong. I understand that those are the Islamic rules, and that's fine with me.

But for me. personally, the whole issue of gender separation is utterly incomprehensible! I don't wish to hijack sonz' thread, and there isn't much point debating it anyway ... I will never agree with the idea that the mixing of genders is somehow dirty, sexist and inappropriate! :(

Jesus mixed with men and women alike, and it is his example I follow! He even had contact with women which were deemed 'unclean' (i.e. a menstruating woman and non-Jewish women).

peace.
Reply

sonz
09-09-2006, 09:31 AM
salama

the prophet (saw) didnt shake hands with women using cloth. he only toke their words for allegiance. the hadith of shaking hands using cloth is weak and not permissible

chk this

Question : -
I would like a detailed answer on the ruling on a man shaking hands with a woman, and the views
of the four imams and the majority of scholars on that.


Bismillah Rahman Raheem (In the Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Most Beneficient)

Salam alaykum: (Peace be unto all who seek truth and guidance)

Answer :
- Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

It is not permissible for a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger to put his hand in the hand of a women who is not permissible for him or who is not one of his mahrams. Whoever does that has wronged himself (i.e., sinned).



It was narrated that Ma'qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him."
Narrated by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, 486. Shaykh al-Albaani said in Saheeh al-Jaami', 5045, that this hadeeth is saheeh.



This hadeeth alone is sufficient to deter and to instill the obedience required of us by Allaah, because it implies that touching women may lead to temptation and immorality. It was narrated that 'Aa'ishah the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "When the believing women migrated to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), they would be tested in accordance with the words of Allaah (interpretation of
the meaning):

'O Prophet! When believing women come to you to give you the Bay'ah (pledge), that they will not associate anything in worship with Allaah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit illegal sexual intercourse'
[al-Mumtahanah 60:12]

'Aa'ishah said: Whoever among the believing women agreed to that had passed the test, and when the women agreed to that, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to them: "Go, for you have given your oath of allegiance.' No, by Allaah, the hand of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman, rather they would give their oath of allegiance with words only."
And 'Aa'ishah said: "By
Allaah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) only took the oath of allegiance from the women in the manner prescribed by Allaah, and the hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman. When
he had taken their oath of allegiance he would say, 'I have accepted your oath of allegiance verbally.'"

(narrated by Muslim, 1866)

It was narrated from 'Urwah that 'Aa'ishah told him about the women's oath of allegiance: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never touched any woman with his hand. He would explain to the woman what the oath of allegiance implied, and when she accepted, he would say 'Go, for you have given your oath of allegiance.'"
Narrated by Muslim, 1866

This infallible one, the best of mankind, the leader of the sons of Adam on the Day of Resurrection, did not touch women. This is despite the fact that the oath of allegiance was originally given by hand. So how about men other than the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?
It was narrated that Umaymah the daughter of Raqeeqah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "I do not shake hands with women."
Narrated by al-Nasaa'i (4181) and Ibn Maajah, 2874; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-
Jaami', 2513.


Secondly:
It is not permissible to shake hands even with a barrier in between, such as shaking hands from beneath a garment and the like. The hadeeth that was narrated allowing that is da'eef (weak).

It was narrated from Ma'qal ibn Yassaar that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to shake hands with women from beneath a garment." Narrated by al-Tabaraani in al-Awsat, 2855.

Al-Haythami said:
This was narrated by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer and al-Awsat. Its isnaad includes 'Ataab ibn Harb, who is da'eef (weak).
Majma' al-Zawaa'id, 6/39.

Wali al-Deen al-'Iraaqi said:
The words of 'Aa'ishah, "He used to accept the women's oath of allegiance by words only" mean that he did so without taking their hands or shaking hands with them. This indicates that the bay'ah of men was accepted by taking their hands and shaking hands with them, as well as by words, and
this is how it was. What 'Aa'ishah mentioned was the custom.

Some of the mufassireen mentioned that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called for a vessel of water and dipped his hand in it, then the women dipped their hands in it. And some of them said that he did not shake hands with them from behind a barrier and had a Qatari
cloak over his hand. And it was said that 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) shook hands with them on his behalf. None of these reports are sound, especially the last one, How could 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) have done something that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who was ma'soom (infallible), would not do?
Tarh al-Tathreeb, 7/45

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:



The most correct view is that this (i.e., shaking hands with women from behind a barrier) is not allowed at all, because of the general meaning of the hadeeth, according to which the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "I do not shake hands with women;" and so as to ward off the means that may lead to evil.
(Adapted from Hashiyat Majmoo'at Rasaa'il fi'l-Hijaab wa'l-Sufoor, p. 69)
The same ruling applies to shaking hands with old women; this is also haraam because of the general meaning of the texts on this issue. The reports that say it is permissible are da'eef (weak).

Al-Zayla'i said:
"As for the report that 'Abu Bakr used to shake hands with old women, it is also ghareeb."
(Nasab al-Raayah, 4/240)


Ibn Hajar said:
I cannot find this hadeeth.
(al-Diraayah fi Takhreej Ahaadeeth al-Hidaayah, 2/225)

Fourthly:
With regard to the views of the four imams, they are as follows:

1 - The Hanafi madhhab:
Ibn Nujaym said:
It is not permissible for a man to touch a woman's face or hands even if there is no risk of desire because it is haraam in principle and there is no necessity that would allow it.
Al-Bahr al-Raa'iq, 8/219

2 - The Maaliki madhhab:
Muhammad ibn Ahmad ('Ulaysh) said:
It is not permissible for a man to touch the face or hand of a non-mahram woman, and it is not permissible for him to put his hand on hers without a barrier. 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with
her) said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never accepted a woman's oath of allegiance by shaking hands with her; rather he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to accept their oath of allegiance by words only." According to another report, "His hand
never touched the hand of a woman, rather he would accept their oath of allegiance by words only."
(Manh al-Jaleel Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel, 1/223)

3 - The Shaafa'i madhhab:
Al-Nawawi said:
It is not permissible to touch a woman in any way.
Al-Majmoo', 4/515.

Wali al-Deen al-'Iraaqi said:
This indicates that the hand of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not touch the hand of any woman apart from his wives and concubines, whether in the case of accepting the oath of allegiance or in other cases. If he did not do that despite the fact that he was
infallible and beyond suspicion, then it is even more essential that others heed this prohibition. It appears from the texts that he refrained from doing that because it was haraam for him to do so.
The fuqaha' among our companions and others said that it is haraam to touch a non-mahram woman even if that is not touching parts of her body that are not 'awrah, such as her face. But they differed with regard to looking when there is no desire and no fear of fitnah. The prohibition
on touching is stronger than the prohibition on looking, and it is haraam when there is no necessity that would allow it. If it is the case of necessity, e.g. medical treatment, removing a tooth or treating the eyes, etc., if there is no woman who can do that, then it is permissible for a nonmahram to do that because it is the case of necessity.
Tarh al-Tathreeb, 7/45, 46

4 - The Hanbali madhhab
Ibn Muflih said:
Abu 'Abd-Allaah - i.e., Imam Ahmad - was asked about a man who shakes hands with a woman. He said, No, and was emphatic that it is haraam. I said, Should he shake hands with her from
beneath his garment? He said, No.


Shaykh Taqiy al-Deen also favoured the view that it is prohibited, and gave the reason that touching is more serious than looking.
AlAdaab al-Shar'iyyah, 2/257
And Allaah knows best.



IslamQa
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 09:32 AM
^ mixing of genders is totally fine as long as its between mahram's (family n stuff) :D

But with strangers, i think we can agree that not getting physical is a v good way to prevent ways to illegal relationships/adultery and all that stuff.

Islam cuts off any path to haram things, that's the point.
Reply

~Stranger~
09-09-2006, 09:38 AM
I will never agree with the idea that the mixing of genders is somehow dirty, sexist and inappropriate!
nobody does till they find their spouse in bed with another person- this rule is to protect us from feeling attracted to the other gender (and thus leading to adultry and fornication)

and its known that the hands r one of the most sensible places in our body for touch... (read about the Sensory system) ....

islamic rules r not made out the blue for no reason!!!
Reply

~Stranger~
09-09-2006, 09:42 AM
"For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him."
one of my favourite ahadith

jazakAllah bro for posting
Reply

------
09-09-2006, 09:42 AM
At least she put her religion before anything, thats cool, Masha'Allah.
Reply

sonz
09-09-2006, 09:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
LOL, that's a funny quote. :)

Whatever, don't get me wrong. I understand that those are the Islamic rules, and that's fine with me.

But for me. personally, the whole issue of gender separation is utterly incomprehensible! I don't wish to hijack sonz' thread, and there isn't much point debating it anyway ... I will never agree with the idea that the mixing of genders is somehow dirty, sexist and inappropriate! :(
freemixing causes temptation. this is an undeniable fact. so why allow something that causes people to go against the beliefs of islam such as fornication and adultry.


Free mixing in Islam

When we consider all of the laws governing the relationship between men and women in Islam, it is clear that Islam forbids any mixing between the sexes that might provide even the remotest possibility of temptation. Scholars of Islam throughout history have fully appreciated this fact. We can see it evidenced in the writings of the great jurists:

Imam Al-Sarakhsī writes: “The judge should try women separately from men since people tend to crowd together in the courtroom. It is quite obvious that the mixing together of men and women under such crowded conditions is conducive to temptation and other distasteful consequences.” [al-Mabsūt (16/80)]

Imam Al-Nawawī also writes: “Ibn al-Mundhir and others maintain that it is a matter of unanimous agreement that women are not obligated to attend the Jumu`ah prayers. However, his argument that this is because it brings about the mixing of women and men is not correct. The attendance of women at the Jumu`ah prayers does not necessarily bring about such mixing since the women stay behind the men.” [al-Majmū` (4/350)]

Al-Nawawī further explains: “One of the vilest innovations, that some ignorant people today are involved in, is the habit of lighting candles on Mount `Arafah on the ninth night. This behavior is gravely misguided and is full of improper goings-on such as the mixing of men and women.” [al-Majmū`: (8/140)]

In the law book entitled al-Fawākih al-Dawānī, there is a discussion of when it is permissible to refuse an invitation to a wedding party. It says: “An invitation may be refused if there is any clear wrongdoing at the party, like the mixing of men and women.”

When scholars warn against the free mixing of men and women, they are not talking about the mere presence of men and women together in the same place. This is something that is definitely not prohibited by Islamic Law. Men and women gathered in the same place at the time of the Prophet (SAW) in the mosque and in the marketplace. They walked down the same roads and public thoroughfares.

The mere presence of men and women in the same area is not a great cause for temptation. It would be wrong to treat this as unlawful mixing, since the reason for prohibiting free mixing does not exist in such circumstances. If someone were to prohibit men and women from frequenting the same public places under the pretext of preventing temptation, this would be taking matters to an extreme and imposing a restriction that is unduly severe. Such a policy is, moreover, unnatural and would impose great hardships on people’s lives.

At the same time, some circumstances are indisputably cases of unlawful mixing. This would include situations where women and men are crowded together so that there is a danger of their making physical contact. Equally unlawful would be any occasion where unrelated women and men are seated next to one another. Under these circumstances, desires are kindled and temptations are greater and regrettable things happen, as is seen time and again in co-ed schools and mixed social events.

The same can be said for any repeated acquaintance between men and women. Repeated meetings break down the barriers between men and women and allow a relationship to develop between them.

We cannot compare situations like these to the general presence of men and women at shops and other open public places, especially when women are accompanied by their family. In such cases, there is no intimacy, no crowding, and no reason for suspicion. Preventing women from public places frequented by men in order to prevent temptation would be taking things to an extreme.

A woman is commanded in Islam not to come too close to men. She is not, however, prohibited from going to places where men are present as long as she does not approach them or place herself in a position where she is alone with them.

There can be no doubt that preventative legislation is an important part of Islamic Law. There are numerous rulings in Islam that are preventative in nature. However, this does not mean that we can legislate against every remote possibility of wrongdoing that we can think of. Doing so would be a violation of Islam’s tolerance and magnanimity and its ease of application. It would place too great a burden upon the believers.

People might differ as to the degree of mixing that is prohibited. We can, nonetheless, get a good approximation of proper limits by reviewing the laws of Islam that govern the relationship between men and women. The sacred texts provides ample evidence about how and when men and women can meet, how women should dress and conduct themselves when they go outside, and many other pertinent matters. It is impossible for free mixing between men and women to occur if Islamic Law is properly observed.

The body of evidence showing that women and men should not mix freely with one another is quite large. We will briefly mention some of it:

1. Allah says: “And when you ask the ladies for anything, ask them from before a screen. That makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs.” [Sūrah al-Ahzāb: 53] For women to go about uncovered in the company of men is inarguably a gross violation of the command given in this verse.

2. It is prohibited for men to join women in one place in the absence of at least one of the women’s close male relatives. The Prophet (SAW) forbade men and women from being alone together. He said: “Never is a man alone with a woman except that Satan is the third party with them.”

The Prophet (SAW) also said: “Do not enter into the company of women.” A man then asked him: “What about her male in-laws?” The Prophet (SAW) replied: “The in-law is the most dangerous”.

This hadīth emphasizes the importance of being wary of in-laws since they are likely to have more opportunities to be alone with the woman and to see her as others do not get the opportunity to see her.

The private meeting between a man and an unchaperoned woman is one of the serious forms of mixing that can take place between the sexes. Temptations are worse when the people know that they are shielded from the sight of others.

Ibn Daqīq al-`Īd makes the following important observation: “We must take into consideration whether or not the man’s arrival at a place brings about a situation where he is alone with the woman. If it does not do so, it is not unlawful for him to go there.” (2/181)

This point was made clear by the Prophet (SAW) when he said: “No man should enter into the presence of a woman after this day unless he is accompanied by one or two other men.” [Sahīh Muslim]

3. There are numerous evidences that the woman may not shake hands with men who are not among her closest relatives.

The Prophet (SAW) never shook hands with an unrelated woman. Umaymah b. Raqīqah said: “I came to the Prophet (SAW) with a group of the women of Madinah to swear fealty for Islam. The women informed Allah’s Messenger (SAW) that they wished to swear fealty to him. The Prophet (SAW) said: ‘I do not shake hands with women. The way I accept the pledge from one woman is the same as with one hundred women.” [al-Muwatta’, Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Sunan al-Nasa’ī and Sunan Ibn Majah].

The Prophet (SAW) also said: “It is better for one of you to be pierced by a steel pin in his head than to touch the hand of a strange woman.”

4. The Qur’ān clearly forbids women from being soft of speech while talking to men. Allah says: “Be not too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak with a speech (that is) proper.” [Sūrah al-Ahzāb: 32].

5. There is evidence that women may not sit with strange men while wearing perfume. The Prophet (SAW) said: “Any woman who puts on perfume then goes and passes by some men to let them find her scent is a type of adulteress.” [Musnad Ahmad, Tirmidhi]

6. The Prophet (SAW) said: “The best of rows in prayer for the man is the first row and the worst for him is the last, and the best of rows for the women is the last row and the worst for her is the first.” [Sahīh Muslim].

If this advice is being given for men and women when they are in their purest frame of mind and engaged in prayer, then how should they be expected to conduct themselves in other situations?

Ibn `Abbās(RA) relates that he prayed one of the `Īd prayers with the Prophet (SAW). He informs us that the Prophet (SAW) prayed and offered a sermon, then he went to the women and offered to them a separate sermon, admonishing them and encouraging them to give charity. [Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

Ibn Hajr offers the following observations about this hadīth: “The fact that he went to the women separately shows that the women were assembled separately from the men and were not mixed in with them.” [Fath al-Bārī (2/466)]

7. Once the Prophet (SAW) saw men and women mixing together on the road upon their departure from the mosque. He said to the women: “Hold back a bit. You do not have to walk in the middle of the road. You may keep to the sides.” The narrator of the hadīth commented that after that time, women would come so close to the buildings that their dresses would sometime cling to the walls.” [Abu Dāwūd]

Ibn `Umar related that the Prophet (SAW) said about one of the mosque’s doors: “We should leave this door exclusively for women to use.” Ibn `Umar, until he died, never again entered through that door. [Abu Dāwūd]

Umm Salamah said: “When the Prophet (SAW) completed the prayer, the women would get up to leave. He would then wait awhile before standing.” Ibn Shahāb said: “I believe that he waited for a while to give the women an opportunity to depart before the men.” [Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

Ibn Hajr comments: “In the hadīth, we see that it is disliked for men and women to mix on the road. How much more, then, should such mixing be avoided inside of houses.” [Fath al-Bārī (2/336)]

8. It was related in al-Bukhārī that women at the time of the Prophet (SAW) did not circumambulate the Ka`bah along with the men. `Ā’ishah used to go around the Ka`bah at a good distance from the men and avoided mixing with them. Once another woman bade to her to go forward with her so they could touch the corner of the Ka`bah. `Ā’ishah refused to do so. [Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

One of `Āishah’s handmaidens came to her and said: “O Mother of believers, I went around the Ka`bah seven times and touched the corner twice or trice”.

`Āishah replied: “May Allah not reward you for pushing your way through men. It would have been sufficient for you to you to say “Allah Akbar” as you passed by”. [Musnad al-Shāfi`ī]

There are two things that this shows us. First, `Ā’ishah did not hesitate to circumambulate the Ka`bah when there were men around, nor did she forbid other women from doing so. She only refrained from crowding into men and mixing with them and this is what she prohibited others from doing. This shows us in the clearest of terms that the mere presence of men and women in the same place is not prohibited.

Second, the mixing and contact between men and women circumambulating the Ka`bah that unavoidably occurs during Hajj under today’s crowded conditions cannot be used as proof that such mixing is generally allowed. Firstly, the practice of the people does not constitute any sort of evidence in Islamic Law. Secondly, what is happening today during Hajj is unavoidable. It is permitted out of necessity and cannot be made into a general rule for all times and circumstances. It would be fruitless for us to try and demand that women avoid contact with men while circumambulating the Ka`bah during Hajj. It would be equally impossible to ask them to delay their circumambulations until the crowds depart, especially since the women on Hajj are always accompanied by the others who came with them who cannot be forced to wait around.

It is pure sophistry for anyone to use these exceptional circumstances to argue that men and women are allowed to mingle under circumstances where no necessity exists. It is just as baseless as taking the other extreme and declaring the mere presence or men and women in the same place to be unlawful mixing.

We will conclude by mentioning a few verses of the Qur’ān. Allah says: “Nor come nigh to adultery”. In this verse, Allah does not say “Do not commit adultery” but tells us not even to come close to it. This means that everything that may seduce a person to fall into adultery is unlawful.

Moreover, Allah says: “Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them.” and says: “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty.” [Sūrah al-Nūr: 30-31] This shows us how men and women are to conduct themselves.


Jesus mixed with men and women alike, and it is his example I follow! He even had contact with women which were deemed 'unclean' (i.e. a menstruating woman and non-Jewish women).

peace.
according to the bible of today but in islam we believe that jesus followed the same example as the other prophets. 1 of the characteristics of prophet muhammad (saw) is that he could be alone with non-mahram and look at them cuz of his infallability.
Reply

glo
09-09-2006, 09:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Stranger~
nobody does till they find their spouse in bed with another person- this rule is to protect us from feeling attracted to the other gender
Well, that's exactly what I mean.
I have worked, studied and socialised with men all my life - and it has not turned me into a loose woman who feels the need to succumb to any man who comes her way! The whole idea, that that should be the case, is just daft!
My husband and I have been faithful to each other for 20 years - without feeling the need to keep watching each others move or preventing each other from socialising.
The point is, that we love and trust each other - just as we trust ourselves to walk around, free-mixing, and yet upholding certain moral standards.

All gender separation means to me, is a demonstration of a lack of trust - in your spouse and in yourself! :(

I don't think I can reply to any further posts on this ... the whole things really makes me quite mad! :heated:

Peace.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 09:55 AM
lol.. well put it this way, fact is, some people can control their feelings more than others, but suppose Islam said 'if you cant control ur feeling ur nto allowed 2 shake hands'

no one will hav the guts to say 'oh soryr i cant shake ur hand coz i get tempted to thinking haram stuff easily' lol.. its a genearl rule which works for everyone and the benefit is there

salamz
Reply

Trumble
09-09-2006, 10:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sonz
sexist??? how is it sexist since the rule applies to both men and women.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I got the impression it applied only to women, or to be precise handshakes (or lack of them) between men and women, but obviously that is not the case.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 10:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I got the impression it applied only to women, or to be precise handshakes (or lack of them) between men and women, but obviously that is not the case.
cool np :)

i got confused too... 'women not allowed 2 shake man hand, but man allowed to shake women hand' --> sounds like paradox ;D
Reply

KAding
09-09-2006, 10:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I can't see anything other than a sexist motivation for the difference between men and women, but if that's they way it is in Islam and the teacher is happy with that, so be it.

I can't see why anybody should be forced to shake hands with anybody if they don't wish to. I think the "officials" are wrong purely on the grounds of personal liberty and freedom of choice, rather than religious discrimination.
Agreed.
Reply

Obi-Wan
09-09-2006, 10:25 AM
[QUOTE=glo;482017]If anybody felt compelled to cover his hand with a cloth before shaking mine, I'd be so offended! :uuh: :( [quOTE]

Even if you understood that no offence was intended?
Reply

Malaikah
09-09-2006, 10:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
If anybody felt compelled to cover his hand with a cloth before shaking mine, I'd be so offended! :uuh: :(
:giggling: So would I- it would seem like they think my hands arent clean or something.

But i dont understand why you think its sexist? It applies to both males and females in the same way.
Reply

glo
09-09-2006, 10:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by cheese
But i dont understand why you think its sexist? It applies to both males and females in the same way.
Did I say anywhere that it was sexist ... :?
Reply

rubiesand
09-09-2006, 10:44 AM
Just curious Glo, would you be equally offended if an Orthodox Jewish man refused to shake your hand?
Reply

Malaikah
09-09-2006, 10:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I will never agree with the idea that the mixing of genders is somehow dirty, sexist and inappropriate! :(
^Thats where you said it Glo, unless i misunderstood? :?

Unless you think that WE think mixing is sexist?? which doesnt actually make sense, now that i think about you said...
Reply

rubiesand
09-09-2006, 10:53 AM
"What Can Possibly be Wrong with shaking hands with members of the opposite sex?"

A Jewish perspective which resonates with me as a Muslim woman.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 10:59 AM
^ but i think the jews take it further even with their mahrams.... correct me if im wrong
Reply

Mohsin
09-09-2006, 11:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Did I say anywhere that it was sexist ... :?
I don't mean to be rude, but you said it here and you highlighted it in bold. i guess you meant something else then, but others have said the same though.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I will never agree with the idea that the mixing of genders is somehow dirty, sexist and inappropriate! :(
I don't understand why people think it is sexist when its the same for both sexes. :?
Reply

glo
09-09-2006, 11:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mohsin
I don't mean to be rude, but you said it here and you highlighted it in bold. i guess you meant something else then, but others have said the same though.

I don't understand why people think it is sexist when its the same for both sexes. :?
You are not being rude ... you are just misreading my post. I said:
I will never agree with the idea that the mixing of genders is somehow dirty, sexist and inappropriate!
I am not saying that men and women not shaking hands is sexist.
I am saying that I don't understand why Muslims think the mixing of genders is sexist. (What I mean by that, Mohsin and cheese, is that Muslims often seem to refer to men and women in the Western world relating to each other in ways which Muslims consider sexist. Does that make it clearer?)

peace.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 11:31 AM
^ we don't regard mixing as being sexist as such... it's more towards behaving like animals in a barn, no decency or respect.

and.. the biggest reason.. is the one i mentioned a couple posts up.. coupled with sonz article.
http://www.islamicboard.com/482044-post24.html

tc all the best

ps: and that dont mean its haram 2 talk 2sum1 of opposite gender..... as long as with in rules n stuff..
pps: alpha dudette leave my posts alone! :anger:
Reply

KAding
09-09-2006, 11:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mohsin
I don't understand why people think it is sexist when its the same for both sexes. :?
Sexism actually has two meanings:

sex·ism (sĕk'sĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
So it is not just discrimination, but also putting limits on individuals because of their gender. I.e. overemphasising gender and making it determine how people should act. So seperating males from females just because of their gender would be considered sexist by many feminists.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 11:37 AM
^ its the connotation more than the definition thats the problem.

and feminists exist because of europeans attitude 2 women... they cant seem to find the balance, they jump from one extreme to the other, a while back they couldnt figure whether a woman was human or not.. now they think a woman is a marketing tool... the less clothes the more attractive the product (even if its toilet paper they're selling)

no decency no nothing..

as much as u'd like to think islam despises women, only Allah knows we respect the good amongst them more than you fellas do.
Reply

azim
09-09-2006, 12:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Sexism actually has two meanings:

sex·ism (sĕk'sĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

So it is not just discrimination, but also putting limits on individuals because of their gender. I.e. overemphasising gender and making it determine how people should act. So seperating males from females just because of their gender would be considered sexist by many feminists.
Well in that case the next time you go into the mens toilet... stop and think to yourself. You're being sexist by using a toilet that is only for men!! Perhaps you should use the womens toilets as a revolutionary protest against the sexist views of this country!

And make sure you stop watching sports! I mean why can't men and women box each other? Afterall - seperating them based on gender is sexist! That includes football, basketball, rugby and pretty much every physical team sport played.

At the end of the day, men and women are inherently different. Islam accomodates these differences.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 12:11 PM
^ actually now they've gone down to the level where they hav these unisex toilets :heated:

wont b long b4 they ban cubicles n hav those 'open' toilet things +o( and after that they'll prob tell ppl 'animals n humans r equal,just go do it under a tree.. just like a dog' :vomit:
Reply

Joe98
09-09-2006, 12:12 PM
The teacher is refusing to adopt the local culture.

Everybody who has ever travelled is happy to follow the local customs - except Muslims.

Then Muslims claim they are being discriminated against. Then wonder why they gat bad press.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 12:14 PM
^ so where does your multi-culturulism fit in if everyone's suppose 2 abide by the culture of where they go to :?

silly boy..
Reply

Malaikah
09-09-2006, 12:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Everybody who has ever travelled is happy to follow the local customs - except Muslims.
Really? How come once i heard on the news that this American woman who had to go to Saudi asked for special permission from her government so that she wouldnt have to wear a head scarf in the place she was going? (knowing that it was compulosry for women to where the head scarf in that place?)

She was very happy to follow the customs wasnt she? NOT!
Reply

Protected_Diamond
09-09-2006, 12:17 PM
:sl:

That’s crazy & stupid!! I had an interview recently, and Alhamdulilah i managed not to shake his hand by filling my hands with loads of books!! lol

:w:
Reply

Malaikah
09-09-2006, 12:19 PM
^ lol smart, i once avoided it by pretending i didnt see the guys hand ;D
Reply

Rou
09-09-2006, 12:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I can't see anything other than a sexist motivation for the difference between men and women, but if that's they way it is in Islam and the teacher is happy with that, so be it.

I can't see why anybody should be forced to shake hands with anybody if they don't wish to. I think the "officials" are wrong purely on the grounds of personal liberty and freedom of choice, rather than religious discrimination.
LOL...

people are such jokers..


yes yes its sexist see we think women are dirty so we dont touch them ok!?

oh sorry no! or is it the women who thinks men are dirty so she dont touch them??

oh no wait!!

we think women are not worthy to touch men!!!

or hold up!

is it that men are not worthy to touch women???

hmmm...

cant be anything to do with respect...nah thats absurd!!

whats respect got to do with touching a women!???

must be sexist!!!

**** muslim men making there women do things!!!

oh wait it was the womens decison!??

poor thing she was probably beaten into not shaking hands with people!!

how sexist!!

lol just messin...
Reply

Protected_Diamond
09-09-2006, 12:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by cheese
^ lol smart, i once avoided it by pretending i didnt see the guys hand ;D
:sl:

Alhamdulilah, theres loads of ways to avoid the handshake. you could try explaning to them that its not allowed in islam, and you don't have the right to shake their hands...etc

It's a chance for dawah sisters!!

:)

:w:
Reply

cihad
09-09-2006, 12:26 PM
and brothers
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 12:30 PM
^ looool sis umm salamah hahaha.. jazakilah khayr.

ya tru sis cihad... y do sis's think they're the only ones challenged :p
Reply

Protected_Diamond
09-09-2006, 12:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by cihad
and brothers
:sl:

sister, im trying to follow the rules of the shariah. Segregation of bros and sisters :)

Im sure the brothers know it applies to them as well insha Allah


:w:
Reply

Joe98
09-09-2006, 01:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by cheese
Really? How come once i heard on the news that this American woman ......

2 wrongs do not make a right!
Reply

Snowflake
09-09-2006, 01:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
The teacher is refusing to adopt the local culture.

Everybody who has ever travelled is happy to follow the local customs - except Muslims.

Then Muslims claim they are being discriminated against. Then wonder why they gat bad press.
Why do some westerners/non muslim contradict themselves? Does applying 'human rights' not cover personal/religious freedom then? The freedom to practice your faith?

As for travellers being happy to follow local customs - remember for one, they are not living there and neither is their religion forbidding them from adopting another custom. Secondly muslims living in non muslim countries have also compromised certain practices of their faith (like the call to prayer via loud-speakers in mosques) in order to not cause disturbance to non muslims living there.

If the practice of beliefs is allowed then it should also be accepted that muslims can't or won't compromise their religion over culture. You wouldn't see a Jew eating pig meat to 'fit in' just because his host has served it for dinner. Sikhs are allowed to wear the Kirpan (ceremonial sword) even though for the rest of us carrying an 'offensive' weapon is illegal. No one bats an eyelid until it comes to muslims wanting to practice their faith.

And then you wonder why muslims feel discriminated against.



An extract from a nun's autobiography:
During these months we received instruction in the holy rule and in the 3 vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. The chapter of the holy rule on chastity was remarkable in that it dealt with virtually everything except sex. It began:

"The sisters shall live in the congregation as the angels live in heaven, that is, their life is to be altogether interior and spiritual and detached from everything sensual."

It went on. We were never to look at another person in the eyes. We were never to touch another person. We were never to converse with one person alone, ie, we were to be in company of three or more. We were to have no 'particular friendships'. We were to have no unnecessary conversations with males 'whether lay or ecclesiastical'. For necessary conversations another sister was to be present and report to the superior.


I'm sure no one would've expected this nun to compromise her beliefs. Quite understandably too. As long as she isn't a muslim! :offended:

Peace.
Reply

Woodrow
09-09-2006, 01:25 PM
One problem we all have to face is this clash of religion and culture. We do need to be sensitive of the views of our friends and co-workers that are in a a culture that has customs that differ from our religous beliefs. the difficulty is in how to do it with out appearing to be arrogant or aloof.

One of the best ways is through education. Plus we ourselves must be knowledgable about the cultures of the societies we live and work in. We must never take offense at a person for doing what is acceptable in their culture. Remember we are the ones that are doing things that differ from the general population.

I think the first thing we must do is to act with honesty and openess. Not try to avoid the issues by making excuses about not doing something. Let us give people credit for having sufficient intelligence to respect our beliefs and let us return the favor by acknowledging their right to their beliefs.

Sadly too many of us tend to hide the fact we are Muslim when in a non-Muslim setting. This only adds to confusion when later it is learned we are Muslim.

I believe our best first step is to promote general awareness about our restrictions. Certainly most people we know would not offer us a pork chop once they are aware of our restrictions against eating it. So it can be with handshaking. I think it is far better to let people know we do not shake hands with members of the opposite gender than it is to find excuses not to shake their hand. I can also see how we would offend people if we were to cover our hand and then shake hands, far better to not shake the hand then do that.

It is a two way street, if we do not wish to be offended by others we need to learn not to offend them. People can acknowledge our restrictions, if they know about them. We can not be offended if a person is unaware of them. It is our individual duty to let people know what we can not do and why we can't. A little sharing of knowledge can go a long ways to keeping friendly relationships.
Reply

Muezzin
09-09-2006, 02:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
The teacher is refusing to adopt the local culture.

Everybody who has ever travelled is happy to follow the local customs - except Muslims.

Then Muslims claim they are being discriminated against. Then wonder why they gat bad press.
So if you went to a remote village in the Amazon, would you take part in their rites of passage involving for example putting your arm in a hollow log full of stinging insects, simply because of 'when in Rome do as the Romans do'?

In the case of this lady, I think the school looks worse than her - suspending an employee because they won't shake someone's hand? Calm down, Ebeneezer.
Reply

Ghazi
09-09-2006, 02:02 PM
:sl:

Mash'Allah good on her and may allah reward her.
Reply

lolwatever
09-09-2006, 07:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
2 wrongs do not make a right!
that wasnt the point... btw joey, geez you giv a good impression about athiests, choosing what you want to answer and fleeing from what u cant face :giggling:
Reply

S_87
09-09-2006, 08:11 PM
whats so sexist about this? and sexist to whom?

woman shake hand with woman
man shake hand with man

no problem or sexism issue there
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
09-09-2006, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
If anybody felt compelled to cover his hand with a cloth before shaking mine, I'd be so offended! :uuh: :(
LOL - Well might be a good idea if they've just emerged from the toilet and they've not washed them!
Reply

azim
09-09-2006, 09:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
The teacher is refusing to adopt the local culture.

Everybody who has ever travelled is happy to follow the local customs - except Muslims.

Then Muslims claim they are being discriminated against. Then wonder why they gat bad press.
I live in the UK - which is known in Europe for binge drinking. I also happen to live in Cardiff - which in a recent survey (by MensHealth I believe) was found to be the 'binge drinking capital of the UK'.

To anyone who lives here, its obvious 'binge drinking' is local custom - its all thats talked about during the week.

Binge drinking also costs the country millions in terms of health care (destoyed liver and injuries inccured while drunk), policing and other various ways (vandalism etc...).

I choose not to adopt this 'local custom', 1)because my religion forbids it and 2) i find morally objectionable.

Is this wrong in any way?

The women who chose to not shake the mans hand did so because 1)her religion forbids and 2)she finds it morally objectionable. Theres no reason that people must touch. I, likewise, choose not to shake the hand of strange woman (as in non-familiar - I'm not saying she's abnormal).

Choosing not to adopt local custom isn't wrong.
Reply

Lina
09-09-2006, 09:15 PM
:sl:

Right, Holland and handshakes don't go very well,

MP Rita Verdonk also made a whole lot of drama when an Imam refused to shake her hand at a 'Learn to know about Imams' field trip.

And I will never forget that shot of her when he refused to shake her hand; priceless.

:sl:
Reply

Isaac
09-09-2006, 09:45 PM
Its all about muslims, this and muslims that, when will they ever let muslims be. You know since 9/11 not one day has gone past without Islam being mentioned. An stupid reporters can make a bid deal out of someting which a free woman, whom they all seem to be fighting for i.e her rights, but cant make a deal out of the innocent people that are being killed by the very minute in countries like somalia, iraq, afghanistan, the terrorist attacks on muslims in India, the countless islamophobic propganda, the rape and trture of innocent civilans at the hands of western agressors.

So just take it, he sister did not want to shake hands with the male countepart, she was not forced to, she chose not to. She was not opressed, or was she opressing. She simply chose not to for reasons that she holds firm to. Where are the woman rights campainers that fought for the so called opression of women in afghanistan, where are the womens rights groups, that claimed muslim womes were opressed and are being opressed. Here is a scenario, where a muslim woman is being suspened because she fails to regnise the practice of shaking hands with oppiste gendre. If any one is being sexist or opressive its those that are enforcig their ways onto someone who clearly likes to be different. Its that simple.
Reply

lolwatever
09-10-2006, 12:18 AM
^ veeeery tru... well said.. espcially last paragraph
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-10-2006, 12:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
The teacher is refusing to adopt the local culture.

Everybody who has ever travelled is happy to follow the local customs - except Muslims.

Then Muslims claim they are being discriminated against. Then wonder why they gat bad press.
I thought u guys believed in freedom...theres no "forcing" in it. If someone prefers their religion rules, why make a big fuss? Her not doing it, wont make much of a difference to the students...
When she wants to follow her religious rules and cant, why can't she feel discrimination?
Reply

~Stranger~
09-10-2006, 07:56 AM
she doesnt want anyone touching her, wheres her freedom?!

masha'allah she chose religion over work, good on her, may Allah bless her and reward her....
Reply

Inshallah
09-10-2006, 08:44 AM
I'm with the sister she doesn't have to if she doesn't want to. Verbal greeting is more than good enough.
Reply

Rou
09-11-2006, 08:42 PM
so would a man be fired for not rubbing noses?? as in some people say hello by rubbing noses so would a male teacher in the same country be fired if he didnt rub noses!???

im guessing not im guessing him shaking hands would be taken as a ok substitute!? however a woman saying a verbal hello and not shaking hands is diffrent?? ignorance and intolerant..

i keep hearing alot of people claiming without any proof that muslims are intolerant however by the looks of everything going on around the world it seems others are the intolerant ones..

no hijab , no refusing of shaking hands ,u read a book written in arabic on a bus or a plane and your most likley a terrorist, grow a beard and you automaticly carry bombs for fun, talk of religon and your backing terrorists...
Reply

Littleozzybloke
09-12-2006, 08:36 AM
hm....i don't know about the rest of the world...but here in oz..it's a natural non-thinking action that we offer our hand in friendship to another...male or female...
and if it is refused, it does come back as a bit of an insult..

but then the eskimo's rub noses....
that's ok too...if they don't have a cold..:giggling:
Reply

Malaikah
09-12-2006, 08:44 AM
^its not a cultural thing though, its a religious thing, males and females strictly arent allowed to have that kind of contact with each other.

i know what you mean though, it can easy be taken the wrong way, especially when people so are so used to shaking hands withthe opposite gender, but i guess if the person just explains why they refused, well then it shouldnt be as bad inshaallah
Reply

Chuck
09-12-2006, 09:21 AM
"supposed to be a good model"
Never thought about shaking hands this way.

Women don't shake hands me... I think I should move to Holland :giggling:
Reply

Sis786
09-12-2006, 12:17 PM
Well i work in a professional environment and i meet with non Muslim men all the time. Most the time i wrap my arms around the file and acknowledge the client with an alternative greeting but the odd occasion the man might put his hand out and i find it rude to refuse.

Allah SWT knows my intention and i hope that i gain his mercy..

But with regards to the article i think that its a shame that this can happen i know that if my client reported me to the boss and even though one of my bosses are Muslim i think they would ask me to shake hands with those that offer!
Reply

MetSudaisTwice
09-12-2006, 12:17 PM
salam
mashallah well said sis
wasalam
Reply

lolwatever
09-12-2006, 12:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sis786
Well i work in a professional environment and i meet with non Muslim men all the time. Most the time i wrap my arms around the file and acknowledge the client with an alternative greeting but the odd occasion the man might put his hand out and i find it rude to refuse.

Allah SWT knows my intention and i hope that i gain his mercy..

But with regards to the article i think that its a shame that this can happen i know that if my client reported me to the boss and even though one of my bosses are Muslim i think they would ask me to shake hands with those that offer!
as in the sis should hav shaked opposite sex hands :?

its not about whether its rude or not.. its called dawah, u could refuse n leave them die with anger.. which is fine... or u could refuse n explain why and that's even better :)

they considered it rude from the prophet that he didnt compromise even a tiny bit of his religion.. but that just meant more reward, and we benefit from the fruits of that resiliance till today :)

salamz
Reply

Sis786
09-12-2006, 12:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lolwatever
as in the sis should hav shaked opposite sex hands :?

its not about whether its rude or not.. its called dawah, u could refuse n leave them die with anger.. which is fine... or u could refuse n explain why and that's even better :)

they considered it rude from the prophet that he didnt compromise even a tiny bit of his religion.. but that just meant more reward, and we benefit from the fruits of that resiliance till today :)

salamz
Bro i dont argue with that point i agree with you! But reality is that sometimes in work you are asked to do things that are against your religion, and you have to make a decision im not saying that this is right but its reality.

The Sister in the article i admire and like her i also avoid shaking hands but sometimes you have to attend these meetings and functions and i really try hard but you get the one cocky barrister who shakes hands with everyone. I dont know whats in his heart but i know whats in mine. If i refuse him in front of everyone i will embrasss him and myself.

Maybe im wrong on doing it and i pray that my intentions will be enough to gains Allahs SWT mercy
Reply

lolwatever
09-12-2006, 12:56 PM
Bro i dont argue with that point i agree with you! But reality is that sometimes in work you are asked to do things that are against your religion, and you have to make a decision im not saying that this is right but its reality.
islam is reality sis, part of reality is that tests that Allah gives us aren't always easy... i know for fact some bros who go thru alot of this for example at uni... and really once u get the courage to be upfront about it.. ppl literally get interested about Islam... lol i knwo for fact... it happened with one bro during a uni class.. n it literally ended up a discussion about Islam n they where very intersted... EVEN THO.. it started off with offended faces...

The Sister in the article i admire and like her i also avoid shaking hands but sometimes you have to attend these meetings and functions and i really try hard but you get the one cocky barrister who shakes hands with everyone. I dont know whats in his heart but i know whats in mine. If i refuse him in front of everyone i will embrasss him and myself.
sis, embaressment is something that we feel coz we think its embaressing... its part of the test, but i think when we look at companions like 'rib'ee ibn amir' and how he faced an infinitely more embaressing situation with the KING of persia.... shaking hands is nothinggg compared to it :)

Maybe im wrong on doing it and i pray that my intentions will be enough to gains Allahs SWT mercy
may allah grant us firmness of heart n make us proud of our deen ameeen.. remember Islam is a way of life, it's all about raelity, not abstract mystic theorems..
Reply

Chuck
09-12-2006, 03:25 PM
The Sister in the article i admire and like her i also avoid shaking hands but sometimes you have to attend these meetings and functions and i really try hard but you get the one cocky barrister who shakes hands with everyone. I dont know whats in his heart but i know whats in mine. If i refuse him in front of everyone i will embrasss him and myself.
The problem with such rules is that they violate personal choice and I find it hypocritical. First of all, shaking hands is a personal thing if somebody doesn't want to shake hands, whatever reason, then it is the person's right.... it doesn't hurt (physically) anyone. Second, if they don't want muslim men/women to avoid shaking hands with opposite gender because it is considered rude then what about rude and insulting caricatures and video against muslims? They can't have it both ways.
Reply

wilberhum
09-12-2006, 05:55 PM
There are many ways to greet some one with respect. Shaking hands is only one. In Japan a slight bow is the common form. Those that think shaking hands is necessary are narrow minded and need go get out of there little box and join the world.
Reply

Muezzin
09-12-2006, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
There are many ways to greet some one with respect. Shaking hands is only one. In Japan a slight bow is the common form. Those that think shaking hands is necessary are narrow minded and need go get out of there little box and join the world.
You're right.

Also, I tend to think situations like the one in the story can be avoided by simply telling people 'sorry, I'm not allowed to do this in my religion because...'. Then if, after giving your reason, you're still treated badly it may well be because the other guy is an ignorant runt rather than because you're 'being difficult'.

I'm not saying the lady in question didn't do this, I'm just saying how you can avoid that kind of misunderstanding in everyday life.
Reply

Showkat
12-24-2006, 04:36 PM
Netherlands: Islamic teacher sacked over hand shake

http://www.expatica.com/actual/artic...story_id=35223



AMSTERDAM — A Utrecht school wants to sack a female Muslim teacher who refused to shake hands with men.

The Vader Rijn College has sent the teacher a letter of dismissal, breaching an advisory ruling urging against the teacher's sacking.

The teacher had earlier been suspended after she refused to shake hands with men last summer.

The woman citied religious beliefs for her decision, despite the fact she had previously shaken hands with men.

The director of the vocational VMBO school said the Islamic teacher gave a bad example to students.

The Equal Treatment Commission recently issued an advisory ruling granting the teacher the right to refuse a hand shake.

It said the Utrecht school should not sack her for this reason alone.

Comment:

If refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex means that Muslims give a bad example to students then does that mean that we have to participate in Christmas celebrations, go to parties and free-mix, dance and drink alcohol?

Europe is supposed to be a place where people come fleeing persecution because of its history of tollerance and a place where u can practice your religion and express alternative ideas and opinions without fear.

But in recent years Europe is on its way to becoming a place where only the Secular viewpoint is tollerated and any view based upon religion and especially Islam is clamped down upon.

So we see that the western civilisation is in conflict, not with Islam but with its own philosophy, what is Secularism and what is the implementation of it?

Should this woman be sacked or should she not be sacked? This is the dilemma the Secularists are facing as can be seen from the article.
Reply

Woodrow
12-24-2006, 08:05 PM
I believe this same story was posted here not too long ago. But at the moment I can not find it. So I apologise to all if I have let a duplicate thread slip through.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-24-2006, 08:23 PM
Your comment hit the nail on the head.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 08:29 PM
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Reply

Sabriina
12-24-2006, 08:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Not really.We dont have to blend in to please the non believer while in the process we displease Allah.It doesnt work like that.
Reply

netprince
12-24-2006, 09:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Erm er ah

No Thanks :)
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-24-2006, 09:10 PM
^^Roger that. I'd stick in blending in with Islam, but thanx for the offer ;D
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 09:12 PM
The laws of a country are the laws of that country. Why should there be seperate rules for one group of people?
Reply

strider
12-24-2006, 09:12 PM
Getting the sack over refusing to shake a mans hand?! How pathetic.
Reply

Chuck
12-24-2006, 09:12 PM
What about the right of this women in Islam? I see a lot of people drum rights of women in Islam, where are they now?
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-24-2006, 09:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
The laws of a country are the laws of that country. Why should there be seperate rules for one group of people?
Oh come on! Don't try to make this a "Muslims don't want to follow the law of the land"-issue. There's no law that states that women must have physical contact with strange men.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
Oh come on! Don't try to make this a "Muslims don't want to follow the law of the land"-issue. There's no law that states that women must have physical contact with strange men.
Sorry, let me rephrase. Rules of employment.
Reply

Fishman
12-24-2006, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Sorry, let me rephrase. Rules of employment.
:sl:
There are also rules which say that anybody can follow their own faith except if it involves harming people...
:w:
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
There are also rules which say that anybody can follow their own faith except if it involves harming people...
:w:
Not neccessarily at the expense of the integrity of the rules made for the population as a whole.
Reply

strider
12-24-2006, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Not neccessarily at the expense of the integrity of the rules made for the population as a whole.
Enlighten all the perplexed folk, what harm shall come by a woman politely refusing to shake your hand?
Reply

Fishman
12-24-2006, 09:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Not neccessarily at the expense of the integrity of the rules made for the population as a whole.
:sl:
That is one of the rules made for the population as a whole. It's called a human right.
:w:
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by strider
Enlighten all the perplexed folk, what harm shall come by a woman politely refusing to shake your hand?
Rules are rules. If the rules state that it is mandatory to shake hands, then you must shake hands as a term of employment. No special treatment. Why should she not follow the rules that everyone else must?
Reply

netprince
12-24-2006, 09:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Rules are rules. If the rules state that it is mandatory to shake hands, then you must shake hands as a term of employment. No special treatment. Why should she not follow the rules that everyone else must?

The issue isnt with rules, the issue is with new rules being created to discriminate against muslims.
Reply

Woodrow
12-24-2006, 09:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Rules are rules. If the rules state that it is mandatory to shake hands, then you must shake hands as a term of employment. No special treatment. Why should she not follow the rules that everyone else must?
For the same reason that a woman should not be subjected to sexual harasment of any form by her employer. Mandatory hand shaking is sexual harassment of a Muslim. Body contact no matter how slight should never be a condition of employment.
Reply

Fishman
12-24-2006, 09:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Rules are rules. If the rules state that it is mandatory to shake hands, then you must shake hands as a term of employment. No special treatment. Why should she not follow the rules that everyone else must?
:sl:
Because we all have the human right of religious freedom. And if an organisation violates that they are liable to be sued to pieces. Soliders have to have their hair cut in a specific manner. But Sikh soldiers don't, because their right to freedom of religion. As long as it is not impossible for practical reasons (people who work in dangerous factories can't wear flowing robes), anybody is entitled to their right to religious freedom.
:w:
Reply

netprince
12-24-2006, 10:04 PM
Everybody is equal, except some are more equal than others.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 10:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by netprince
The issue isnt with rules, the issue is with new rules being created to discriminate against muslims.
I didn't see anything about new rules being created to do this. The only new rule being created was by the '"Equal" Treatment Commision', an advisory contradicting the old rule by the school. The advisory ruled that she should not be sacked. This statement is in line with part of the muslim victim role that a few of you see yourselves in. It is getting to be a bit boring.


format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
For the same reason that a woman should not be subjected to sexual harasment of any form by her employer. Mandatory hand shaking is sexual harassment of a Muslim. Body contact no matter how slight should never be a condition of employment.
To some extent I agree with parts of this.


format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Because we all have the human right of religious freedom. And if an organisation violates that they are liable to be sued to pieces. Soliders have to have their hair cut in a specific manner. But Sikh soldiers don't, because their right to freedom of religion. As long as it is not impossible for practical reasons (people who work in dangerous factories can't wear flowing robes), anybody is entitled to their right to religious freedom.
:w:
These exceptions are allowed in some countries and organizations and not others. Personally, I strongly disagree with the exceptions, and actively oppose them.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 10:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by netprince
Everybody is equal, except some are more equal than others.
My point exactly. This is what others see when they see an exception being made for somebody.
Reply

strider
12-24-2006, 10:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
These exceptions are allowed in some countries and organizations and not others. Personally, I strongly disagree with the exceptions, and actively oppose them.
What ever happened to freedom of expression?
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 10:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by strider
What ever happened to freedom of expression?
Express all you want, without breaking an existing rule.
Reply

netprince
12-24-2006, 10:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
My point exactly. This is what others see when they see an exception being made for somebody.
You misunderstand my quote, NO employment laws i have ever come across make it mandatory to shake hands.

However, when a nation, in this case the Netherlands, wishes to make a point, it invents it!!!

The Islamaphobes are working overtime to create issues where none ever existed.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-24-2006, 10:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by netprince
However, when a nation, in this case the Netherlands, wishes to make a point, it invents it!!!
You must provide proof of this in order for it to be worthy of comment. At this point I believe you are making this accusation up.

format_quote Originally Posted by netprince
The Islamaphobes are working overtime to create issues where none ever existed.
It seems that a some westernaphobes are also working overtime to create paranoia, and an 'us versus them' scenario.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-24-2006, 11:12 PM
The same country - the Netherlands - is in the process of restricting the freedom of Muslim women and forcing them to take of clothes they've chosen to wear. It's not paranoia, it's reality.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-25-2006, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
The same country - the Netherlands - is in the process of restricting the freedom of Muslim women and forcing them to take of clothes they've chosen to wear. It's not paranoia, it's reality.
Would you please post some supporting links? If it is true, then it would be beneficial for muslims that are in this country to begin thinking about moving to a country that does not restrict them in this way.
Reply

M for Maliki
12-25-2006, 04:21 AM
Europe is supposed to be a place where people come fleeing persecution because of its history of tollerance and a place where u can practice your religion and express alternative ideas and opinions without fear.

FALSE. :crickey:


You need to bone up on your history a little more; the past of Europe is anything but tolerant. When the Nasara in ancient europe weren't busy trying to kill us, they were killing themselves over one heresy or another. Outside of maybe the past 200 years, Europe has proved to be fatally intolerant of anything it labels as the "other"
Reply

Malaikah
12-25-2006, 04:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Showkat
If refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex means that Muslims give a bad example to students then does that mean that we have to participate in Christmas celebrations, go to parties and free-mix, dance and drink alcohol?
:sl:

:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Good on her.
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
12-25-2006, 05:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

So when u go to muslim's house/hindu's house/buddhist's house do u pray as they do????

Your comment doesnt suit everywhere....
Reply

SilentObserver
12-25-2006, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muzammil
So when u go to muslim's house/hindu's house/buddhist's house do u pray as they do????

Your comment doesnt suit everywhere....
You wouldn't be expected to, as it is not viewed as harmful or even disrespectful to not pray in another religions way.

Your comment doesnt suit everywhere....
Of course not, it wasn't meant to be a catch all expression.
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
12-25-2006, 05:50 AM
ow, those dutch men, don't remind me i used to live there.......:(
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-25-2006, 01:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Would you please post some supporting links? If it is true, then it would be beneficial for muslims that are in this country to begin thinking about moving to a country that does not restrict them in this way.
Here's a link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...945461,00.html

So the country wants to restrict the freedom of Muslim women and your advice is for them to simply move, and you claim that it is us that try to create an "us vs. them" scenario?
Reply

Bittersteel
12-25-2006, 04:44 PM
The Dutch really want Muslims to leave the Netherlands and I think they should do it.People who are unable to live their own way of life should go.
Reply

Kittygyal
12-25-2006, 04:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muzammil
So when u go to muslim's house/hindu's house/buddhist's house do u pray as they do????

Your comment doesnt suit everywhere....

Assalmualikum warhmathullahi Warbarakathuhu
Majority of people might do :omg:
Ma'assalama
Reply

Maarya
12-25-2006, 04:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by strider
Getting the sack over refusing to shake a mans hand?! How pathetic.
:sl:

u said it, sister! :thumbs_up

:w:
Reply

FollowingAlhuda
12-25-2006, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Rules are rules. If the rules state that it is mandatory to shake hands, then you must shake hands as a term of employment. No special treatment. Why should she not follow the rules that everyone else must?
The first article of the Dutch right says:

You have the right of practising your faith without any consequenses from the government!

SOOOO

A MUSLIM has as his priority serving Allah. And shaking hands arent rules, their just guidelines!
Reply

FollowingAlhuda
12-25-2006, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by DAWUD_adnan
ow, those dutch men, don't remind me i used to live there.......:(
I still do!

But Alhamdolilah, i do practise my faith.
Reply

Woodrow
12-25-2006, 06:16 PM
Oddly when I was a state employee in both Louisiana and Texas. Any personal contact, especialy with opposite gender was very much discourged. We could get fired over initiating a handshake if the person considered it inappropriate.

It does sound like the Netherlands has put up that rule as a "hidden" method of removing Muslims from any form of State employment. In most of the Western world hand shakes are a tool used by politicians and salesmen. Or as a greeting between friends and relatives,
Reply

Durrah
12-25-2006, 07:16 PM
Windham sends first Orthodox Jew in NH to legislature
By JULIE MASIS
Special to The Union Leader
Saturday, Dec. 9, 2006


Windham – A young man who does not shake hands with women was recently elected to the state Legislature, and the support of several members of the Salem Women's Club was instrumental in his victory at the polls.

"My faith out of respect for women does not allow contact between unrelated men and women," said Rep. Jason Bedrick, 23, R-Windham. He said he explains this on a daily basis to female colleagues who reach out their hands to him.

Usually, that's the end of the conversation, he says, but sometimes, when he senses the woman isn't convinced, he adds: "If every man in the world were to keep his hands to himself, would it be a better world for women or a worse world for women?"


Bedrick is the first Orthodox Jew to be elected in New Hampshire, a state that is home to fewer than 10 Orthodox Jewish families and where Jewish people account for 1 percent of the population.


Rep. Jason Bedrick brought his own lunch to Tuesday’s legislative session because kosher food is not available in Concord. (BOB LAPREE)
Orthodox Jews strictly observe the Sabbath, refraining from all work from Friday evening to Saturday evening, and keep Jewish dietary laws. Orthodox men also will not touch a woman's hand unless the woman is a family member, considering the act of touch between opposite sexes as something holy.

Black-bearded, Bedrick never takes off his yarmulke and usually politely declines whenever a fellow legislator asks him whether he'd like to grab a bite to eat, since most New Hampshire restaurants do not carry kosher food.

Taking oaths is also forbidden. As a result, during Wednesday's swearing-in ceremony in Concord, Bedrick will substitute the words "I affirm" for "I swear."

Almost 4,500 Windham and Salem voters put their support behind Bedrick on election day, even though he missed several campaign events because they took place during the Sabbath. In the end, every ballot counted because he beat his opponent by six votes after a recount. He said he believes the support he received from the Salem Women's Club really made a difference.

Barbara Elliot, co-president of the club, and several of her female friends voted for Bedrick after he wrote them an e-mail explaining why he does not shake hands with women.

"After they read this, my girlfriends understood it was not because he did not like women. It was because of his religion. They changed their mind and they voted for him," Elliot said, adding she would be proud to have Bedrick as a son. "I definitely got him his five votes there."

Elliot said she voted for Bedrick because he is well-educated and espouses conservative values.

In fact, all 13 Windham and Salem seats in the House of Representatives will be filled by Republicans as a result of last month's election. Bedrick came in last among Republican candidates, but still did better than any Democrat in the district.

Bedrick said he does not plan to focus on any specifically Jewish issues at the state level because his constituency is not Jewish. Instead, he will concentrate on preserving "the New Hampshire advantage," including the absence of sales and income tax. He is also in favor of school vouchers.

"If there was a school-choice program, more private schools that cater to different interests would open," he said.

However, Bedrick does not represent the opinions of all Jewish leaders in the state, many of whom are Democrats.

"His opinions on school vouchers are divergent from the mainstream Jewish perspective," said Adam Solender, executive director of the Jewish Federation of New Hampshire.

Solender added that although Bedrick is the first Orthodox Jew to be elected, many Reform and Conservative Jewish senators and representatives -- both Democrats and Republicans -- have held, and currently hold, office in the state.

Another Jewish politician from New Hampshire -- U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, a Democrat from Concord -- was elected last month. The last time New Hampshire voters chose a Jewish person to represent them in Washington was more than a decade ago. Republican Sen. Warren B. Rudman served from 1980 to 1993.

source : http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...9-9f4904fd9a1c

*******************************************

How ironic! This man is elected into state, with a powerful position and the fact that he does not shake hands with women due to faith, does not cause shockwaves and is respected. Yet when a muslim women does the same, she's sacked from her job!

It does make one thing clear though: despite europe's claim of tolerance, they are infact much more intolerant of others (especially those who are non-white, non christain) than America and there are growing examples of this. Europeans often wag their fingers at Americans due to america's explosive racial history but if theirs one thing that is clear especially in today's time is that Europeans are the big hypocrites and have no moral ground over the U.S. This muslim woman proabably would not have been sacked if she was in America. Yea some might have grumbled but its not something she would have lost her job over.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-25-2006, 08:04 PM
La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah
Reply

SilentObserver
12-26-2006, 03:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
Here's a link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...945461,00.html

So the country wants to restrict the freedom of Muslim women and your advice is for them to simply move, and you claim that it is us that try to create an "us vs. them" scenario?
Bottom line is this, it is a western country. These are the customs. Get used to it. If something must change (which seems to be the case), then it must be those that are rocking the boat that should change.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-26-2006, 03:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Bottom line is this, it is a western country. These are the customs. Get used to it. If something must change (which seems to be the case), then it must be those that are rocking the boat that should change.
I don't see what this has to do with what we were talking about?
Again, my point was that Muslims aren't paranoid and trying to create an "us vs. them" scenario for simply pointing out for example that there are countries that want to restrict the freedom of Muslim women. I never mentioned whether or not I feel that the country has a right to legislate these kind of things (even though it goes without saying that I would like to see my Muslim sisters not being forced to expose certain bodyparts to men, which they don't want to expose), I was just pointing out a fact.

By the way, since you don't seem to mind that certain governments are in the process of legislating laws which restrict the freedom of Muslims, would you feel the same if anti-Semitic laws were passed? For instance, what if the Netherlands decided to ban the yarmulke?
Reply

SilentObserver
12-26-2006, 04:32 AM
To be honest, I'm getting a little confused as to what your point is, and whether or not you get my point. I don't think we are on the same page in our discussion.
So I will just state my position.
In any given western (or eastern) country, there are laws, rules, customs, and traditions. If any person, of any religion, is to live in that country, they should expect to live by these things. Don't expect it to change for you. In my country, I will not change my traditions and customs because you don't like it. If you grew up here, then you should be used to that. If you just came here, you need to get used to that. I would not expect the people of another country to change their ways for me if I went there.
A person can choose to not follow the customs in my country as long as it is on their own time, and is not viewed as rude, harmful, or offense. When they are being employed, they are now on my time. On my time, they must follow my customs. If this is not acceptable to them, they are free to resign from my employment.
If all of these things are too much to accept, then a person should consider finding a country that is more suitable to thier beliefs and lifestyle.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-26-2006, 12:53 PM
I wasn't even discussing that. You wrote the following:

It seems that a some westernaphobes are also working overtime to create paranoia, and an 'us versus them' scenario.
And so I replied:

The same country - the Netherlands - is in the process of restricting the freedom of Muslim women and forcing them to take of clothes they've chosen to wear. It's not paranoia, it's reality.
I never said that the people of a country should change their customs because of me, so I don't see why you have to bring that up. I was simply answering your post in which you accused some Muslims of trying to create an "us vs. them scenario" when they are only pointing out that there are anti-Muslim laws that are about to be passed.

If you feel that a country should have the right to have anti-Muslim laws, fine. But I don't see why you have to criticize us for simply pointing out that these laws exist or may come into existence.
Reply

Woodrow
12-26-2006, 01:14 PM
One thing to keep in mind. Because a person is Muslim, does not entail they are a foreigner. In the Western Countries many Muslims were born in the country. They are not expressing a nationalistic custum. This is a question of the right for the citizen of a country, to have the right to practice his/her religion as believed.

This is a very basic belief guaranteed in most of the worlds "Civilized" nations. The only time that right should be infringed upon is if the practice poses a danger to the safety of any person or any property.

I do not recall the refusal of shaking hands as being life or health threatening. Nor am I aware of it damaging another persons private property.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-26-2006, 08:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
when they are only pointing out that there are anti-Muslim laws that are about to be passed.
It is westernophobia that causes you to claim that countries have "anti-muslim" laws on the books. It is anti-western propaganda made up by those playing the victim role.
Any such laws that can even remotely be thought of as "anti-muslim" are actually "pro-western".
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-26-2006, 09:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Sorry, let me rephrase. Rules of employment.
It's not a custom for all to shake hands like we do here in the west. Some put their hands together and bow (Japanese) so i think if that lady had said Aslam Aliakam instead it would be the equivalent no?
Reply

SilentObserver
12-26-2006, 09:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
It's not a custom for all to shake hands like we do here in the west. Some put their hands together and bow (Japanese) so i think if that lady had said Aslam Aliakam instead it would be the equivalent no?
I understand your point, but if a japanese teacher were to get a job in a western country they would be expected to follow the customs of that country, not japanese customs.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-26-2006, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
I understand your point, but if a japanese teacher were to get a job in a western country they would be expected to follow the customs of that country, not japanese customs.
Well most people wouldn't make a song and dance about it i guess. - Perahps she can wear a glove, as it's the skin contact that's forbidden here. - Just working out a compromise :)

BTW - I've never heard of handshaking being implemented in the small print as one of the rules of employment
Reply

SilentObserver
12-26-2006, 09:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Perahps she can wear a glove, as it's the skin contact that's forbidden here. - Just working out a compromise :)
A good suggestion.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-26-2006, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
It is westernophobia that causes you to claim that countries have "anti-muslim" laws on the books. It is anti-western propaganda made up by those playing the victim role.
Any such laws that can even remotely be thought of as "anti-muslim" are actually "pro-western".
Singling out Muslim women the way they do is indeed anti-Muslim. Your claim would be true if the law said that only western clothing is acceptable and that Muslim women aren't allowed to wear niqab along with Jews who aren't allowed to wear yarmulkes and sikhs who aren't allowed to wear turbans, for instance. But they specifically target Muslims and so it is obviously anti-Muslim.
Reply

SilentObserver
12-26-2006, 11:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
Singling out Muslim women the way they do is indeed anti-Muslim. Your claim would be true if the law said that only western clothing is acceptable and that Muslim women aren't allowed to wear niqab along with Jews who aren't allowed to wear yarmulkes and sikhs who aren't allowed to wear turbans, for instance. But they specifically target Muslims and so it is obviously anti-Muslim.
I would need to see the specific wording of a law on the books before I was convinced.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-26-2006, 11:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
I would need to see the specific wording of a law on the books before I was convinced.
Just take a look at the article I linked to. Here are their own words:

The cabinet finds the wearing of a burka undesirable
The government will search for the possibility to provide a ban

They specifically want to restrict the freedom of Muslim women.
Reply

Muezzin
12-26-2006, 11:34 PM
The debate about whether certain laws are anti-Islamic belongs in a separate thread, which you are welcome to create. In this thread, please only discuss the news story posted in the original post.
Reply

Beblessed
12-26-2006, 11:35 PM
what happend to holland ughh there getting worser Allhmdulilah am out of that country now
Reply

SilentObserver
12-26-2006, 11:37 PM
The "Equal Treatment" Commission is a farce. You know very well that a person refusing to shake hands for any reason that was not religious, would not be supported by these hypocrites. It is discrimination against a person based upon thier non-religious affiliation.
Reply

aamirsaab
12-27-2006, 12:12 AM
:sl:
Only mankind could get worked up by such a small thing. I mean, first it's the veil, now it's a handshake. Millions of people die on a daily basis, and the rest of mankinds interest lies in the social ramifications of handshake rejection?

I used to think humans could actually save this world, or at the very least be bothered too. How very wrong I have been.
Reply

KAding
12-27-2006, 12:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
Just take a look at the article I linked to. Here are their own words:

The cabinet finds the wearing of a burka undesirable
The government will search for the possibility to provide a ban

They specifically want to restrict the freedom of Muslim women.
Actually, the law itself is aimed at any clothing which makes someone completely unrecognizable in public, so it would also include wearing a closed motorcycle helmet while not actually driving for example.

But I agree. The reason why it is introduced is because of unease about the Burqa, which is seen as a piece of clothing that is designed to inhibit communication and thus integration. The principle behind it is also considered to run contrary to Dutch values.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-27-2006, 12:40 AM
Goes to show:
002.120
YUSUFALI: Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.
PICKTHAL: And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah (Himself) is Guidance. And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then wouldst thou have from Allah no protecting guardian nor helper.
SHAKIR: And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.



But why complain about on an internet forum, when you can just as well complain to them trough mail.
vrc@vaderrijncollege.nl Is the email address they have on their website :)
Keep it polite people ;)
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-27-2006, 12:48 AM
Actually, the law itself is aimed at any clothing which makes someone completely unrecognizable in public, so it would also include wearing a closed motorcycle helmet while not actually driving for example.

But I agree. The reason why it is introduced is because of unease about the Burqa, which is seen as a piece of clothing that is designed to inhibit communication and thus integration. The principle behind it is also considered to run contrary to Dutch values.
Muezzin asked us to stay on the topic in this thread but I might just mention that the people that want to introduce the law themselves said that it is specifically against the burqa, so their intention is pretty clear.
And I do question since when telling women how to dress has been a part of Dutch values. The Netherlands have been famous for their liberal values, so a law which restricts Muslim women's freedom runs contrary to their supposed values, even if they try to rationalize it with anti-Islamic rhetoric (i.e. saying that it oppresses women, etcetera). Anyways, this is another topic.
Reply

KAding
12-27-2006, 01:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Goes to show:
[B]002.120
YUSUFALI: Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.
In all honesty. Does that same quote not apply to a lot of Muslims as well? Do many Muslims not demand from us we respect their scriptures, their prophet even in non-Muslim lands.
Reply

KAding
12-27-2006, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
Muezzin asked us to stay on the topic in this thread but I might just mention that the people that want to introduce the law themselves said that it is specifically against the burqa, so their intention is pretty clear.
And I do question since when telling women how to dress has been a part of Dutch values. The Netherlands have been famous for their liberal values, so a law which restricts Muslim women's freedom runs contrary to their supposed values, even if they try to rationalize it with anti-Islamic rhetoric (i.e. saying that it oppresses women, etcetera). Anyways, this is another topic.
I agree, it is anti-liberal. Thats why I strongly oppose the law. That does not mean the Burqa is not against Dutch values, it clearly is. However, so is the law banning it!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-27-2006, 01:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
In all honesty. Does that same quote not apply to a lot of Muslims as well? Do many Muslims not demand from us we respect their scriptures, their prophet even in non-Muslim lands.
Theirs a difrence inbetween asking someone not to insult; an in asking someone to disobey the rules of their religion when they are in conflict with the tradition of that region.
Reply

KAding
12-27-2006, 02:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Theirs a difrence inbetween asking someone not to insult; an in asking someone to disobey the rules of their religion when they are in conflict with the tradition of that region.
I am not so sure. They expect us to change our behavior, because they find it insulting to draw, say, a cartoon of Muhammad. Guess what? Not shaking hands is also considered insulting and discriminatory in much of the West. Thats why the head teacher who decided to fire her is convinced he is fighting for equality rather than against it: "I protect people who feel discriminated by her behavior."

Besides, lets be honest here. We all know sharia law puts all kinds of restrictions on other religions. Including stuff like forbidding proselytizing, conditions on the building of new churches, disallowing ringing the church bell, and blasphemy. Especially respecting the latter is easier said than done when your message is that Muhammad was a false prophet, which is in itself blasphemous. And thats just for People of the Book, God knows what restrictions are put on polytheists.

In short, I am not at all convinced Muslim law is any more tolerant than what the Dutch are doing now, in fact, it sounds a whole lot worse to be honest. But I approve of neither, so don't worry ;).
Reply

SilentObserver
12-27-2006, 02:09 AM
Many westerners would be very offended if they reached out thier hand to you and you refused it. This is very insulting.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-27-2006, 03:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
I am not so sure. They expect us to change our behavior, because they find it insulting to draw, say, a cartoon of Muhammad. Guess what? Not shaking hands is also considered insulting and discriminatory in much of the West.
I'll repeat my previous point, there's a difference in between not doing something out of religious restrictions and in making a mockery out of something.
Here's what your own laws say regarding it: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaad


Thats why the head teacher who decided to fire her is convinced he is fighting for equality rather than against it: "I protect people who feel discriminated by her behavior."
The rule applies both to male muslims not shaking the hands of females as it does for female muslima's not shaking the hands of males, so there is nothing discriminatory about it. This argument is a smokescreen. Everybody with a lil' bit common sense can look straight trough it. Not only is the rule neutral to both sexes, but next to that it has nothing to do with one sex being inferior or superior, or people looking down on others.

Besides, lets be honest here. We all know sharia law puts all kinds of restrictions on other religions. Including stuff like forbidding proselytizing, conditions on the building of new churches, disallowing ringing the church bell, and blasphemy. Especially respecting the latter is easier said than done when your message is that Muhammad was a false prophet, which is in itself blasphemous. And thats just for People of the Book, God knows what restrictions are put on polytheists. In short, I am not at all convinced Muslim law is any more tolerant than what the Dutch are doing now, in fact, it sounds a whole lot worse to be honest. But I approve of neither, so don't worry ;).
I know that some of the things are done certain governments, but just because some governments implement shariah in their laws doesn't mean that every single rule by that government is Islamic and shariah-based. So far I haven't read any hadeeth that speak about church bells and such. So I think none of the things you mentioned are actually from the shariah but you're welcome to search the databases and prove me wrong of course, for now I'm to lasy. ;)
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-27-2006, 03:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Many westerners would be very offended if they reached out thier hand to you and you refused it. This is very insulting.
Yeah I know, even some muslims are offended when I don't shake their hand. But most people seem to respect it when I get the chance to explain why.

If someone reaches out a hand, and the other person replies:
"Sorry, please don't take this personal but my religion does not allow the shaking of hands between people of opposite gender".
And then after this reply the person is still offended then he is a bigot if you ask me.
Reply

M for Maliki
12-27-2006, 05:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Emir Aziz
The Dutch really want Muslims to leave the Netherlands and I think they should do it.People who are unable to live their own way of life should go.


No foolin. Nothing wrong with a Hijrah on your spiritual rap sheet, eh? :D
Reply

M for Maliki
12-27-2006, 05:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Yeah I know, even some muslims are offended when I don't shake their hand. But most people seem to respect it when I get the chance to explain why.

If someone reaches out a hand, and the other person replies:
"Sorry, please don't take this personal but my religion does not allow the shaking of hands between people of opposite gender".
And then after this reply the person is still offended then he is a bigot if you ask me.
This all depends on interpretation of the relevant texts, and frankly, I don't see much problem with it. The handshake is about as old western tradition as you can get (it predates christianity in Europe). I actually asked Shaykh Nur about this at one point and he said it is acceptable considering the circumstances we live in (IE in a western country surrounded by people who have no clue about our culture). Bear in mind, this is also only in reference to being offered a handshake, so I'm not going around and grabbing the girlies hands. According to the Maliki maddhab, it also doesn't violate wudu. the Shafi'i madhhab says it does however.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
12-27-2006, 11:36 AM
Well, if one's argument is that someone can be insulted for being denied a handshake, don't you think that a women can be insulted or feel bad if some guy wants to touch her against her will?
There's a difference between not wanting to shake hands with someone out of being rude, and out of one's perception of modesty.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-27-2006, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
Only mankind could get worked up by such a small thing. I mean, first it's the veil, now it's a handshake. Millions of people die on a daily basis, and the rest of mankinds interest lies in the social ramifications of handshake rejection?

I used to think humans could actually save this world, or at the very least be bothered too. How very wrong I have been.
We have just enough time to destroy it, so saving it out of the question brother!
Reply

KAding
12-28-2006, 01:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
I'll repeat my previous point, there's a difference in between not doing something out of religious restrictions and in making a mockery out of something.
Here's what your own laws say regarding it: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smaad
Well, again. This is all in the eye of the beholder. Besides, I don't think 'smaad' makes sense here since we are dealing with an religion/ideology not with persons. To me criticizing Islam is no different from criticizing Communism, libertarianism or Taoism.

The rule applies both to male muslims not shaking the hands of females as it does for female muslima's not shaking the hands of males, so there is nothing discriminatory about it. This argument is a smokescreen. Everybody with a lil' bit common sense can look straight trough it. Not only is the rule neutral to both sexes, but next to that it has nothing to do with one sex being inferior or superior, or people looking down on others.
I agree it's a pretty weak argument. I do not believe he should have fired her based on this, but I do think it's his prerogative to do so.

I know that some of the things are done certain governments, but just because some governments implement shariah in their laws doesn't mean that every single rule by that government is Islamic and shariah-based. So far I haven't read any hadeeth that speak about church bells and such. So I think none of the things you mentioned are actually from the shariah but you're welcome to search the databases and prove me wrong of course, for now I'm to lasy. ;)
Actually, I didn't bring this up because some governments in Muslim countries are practicing this, although no doubt they do. I bring it up because it is stated in Islamic law. It is part of the shariah and any Islamic state must follow these rules, since God has willed it. Check out islam-qa.com or islamonline.net or look for the threads on this in the forum.
Reply

brenton
12-28-2006, 02:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Many westerners would be very offended if they reached out thier hand to you and you refused it. This is very insulting.
Many Westerners have some things to learn about living in the world. I think there is a difference between deep religious commitment and cultural instincts. I hardly shake hands anymore--not since that Asian flu a few years back. Some guys are into it; many are not. Of course, I'm not a "hugger" either, so maybe I'm odd.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-11-2015, 09:32 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-15-2010, 06:42 AM
  3. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 01:23 PM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-01-2006, 05:55 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!