Overall a great post, Abraham :up:

Those ME customs dont belong here, unless it's in a restaurant where it's part of the act, and I play along :)

I'm with you Abraham.

A Jewish friend of mine blesses pork before chewing it. :D

I have travelled to many regions of Africa, most of which today are in different hands with different borders, I was forbidden to enter Kenya with the lame excuse of being from the PLO, fine, Mr. Kenyan revolutionary, I won't spread my western influence, wisdom and knowledge to your local population and subvert them in the most basic revolutionary way. Really, I won't! That's the whole point!

In my trips to Africa and Indochina I've ALWAYS made an effort to keep a low-profile. I don't like being a tourist, it's not fun, unless you're looking to relax at a resort or enjoy common attractions or sites, but to me it is much more fun to reach out and touch the local population. In most of the globe I've visited I can go easily unnoticed, but on more sinister regions as Soweto, if you go as a tourist (good luck) you'll be looked down by the locals, if not with hate, but if you can bypass the book-cover judgement, then you can discover what Soweto is really like, the people, the land, the culture.

As a tourist, I could run to the airport or an embassy and escape at any time, I could insult and hurt the locals all I wanted and simply run away, I had my home to go back to, my safe heaven, I had no fundamental need to respect the local culture.

But I wouldn't do that if I understand I'm stepping on a land that is not my own, talking with people whom I share no bonds with at all, other than the spiritual one, as we're both Human, in a country which I have nothing to do with, the least I can do is respect the local population, learn and understand the culture and do my best to integrate.

The reward is unmeasurable. The smile on their faces, the long chatting afternoons that went deep into the night, being invited to their homes, to dinner with them, being welcomed into their lives, having the doors and windows wide open, it is a very special feeling to share with a distant "stranger" from a distant land, suddenly, it all seems so much closer, to home, to your inner self. It's a pleasure every person should be allowed to experience once in their life times. I mean, how many people can say they have a North Vietnamese General as a pen-pal?

Now, imagine an immigrant! Shouldn't the demands be even higher? A tourist can behave like me voluntarily, but an immigrant, he needs to make the foreign land his own, he needs to understand the foreign culture to be able to feel part of it, knowing or learning the language should be mandatory.

I believe so, using as an exemple the Japanese immigrants from the past decades. People from a different land, rich with culture and religion, no less than any Muslim, and they managed to immigrate without causing any cultural conflicts, their values matched perfectly with those of their hosts. During WW2 they were locked in concentration camps by many nations, yet, the past is left to the past, because revolving these corpses would bring nothing but problems, it doesn't matter, life goes on, there's a life to live and it's not in the graveyard. I'll end the comparison here, because it would be unfair to go further and remember Japanese immigrants brought with them technology techniques and agricultural know-how as Muslims can't be expected to develop such things under Islam and in the desert, so I won't touch that point.

But speaking of which, the only region I never visited was the Muslim world. Never felt the desire, my first contact with an Egyptian Muslim was at the Seine, he was pissing in the river. Now, that's not the problem, I would piss at the Seine anytime too, everybody should piss at the Seine even. Jokes aside, the only thing actually stopping me from pissing at the Seine is that it was not my home, it was not my river. Now, pissing on the streets is awfull, people must be remembered all the time we ditched the dark ages, we have better sewage than ever and we should confine our corporeal excretions to that system. No blame on the Egyptian, if the French pee in their own streets, how do you expect him to understand his custom is not actually acceptable and the French who do that are actually violating the law? When there's no one to set the example... If you actually forced Muslim immigrants to understand what they're getting themselves into, chances are they'd become better and more French than the traditional Seine-pissing Frenchmen.

Re: Good bye Europe
 

I fully agree with you. In fact, I would shake that person's hand if it will avoid embarrassing or insulting him, as that is much much greater prohibition in this case.

My point, however, was that you should not attribute this case to Islam's viewing women as inferior. You have other proofs for that but not here.
Even assuming I would not shake someone's hand under the circumstances, it is farfetched to state that such an act alone indicates I am intraverted within my own subculture. That is a totally unproportional description.
I have never heard this one. Logically, that would mean that same-gender handshakes should be forbidden, too. This is certainly not the case in Judaism. Please enlighten me if you find a source for this explanation in Islam.
The gentlemen is either a super holyman or he's cracked out of his wits. This never happens in all of the circles I am involved in, including what you call "fundamental" ones.
On El Al, they'd let him starve. And other strictly Orthodox Jewish passenger's, knowing how out of line this is, would be disgusted and pipe up and tell him so.
I think I've responded to this point of norms and your case of abnorms.
An observant Jew who wants to eat non-kosher food is really wasting the opportunity by jumping with excitement over an airline meal. Poor fella!
In this case, the rules might and might not have been stretched. Furthermore, this ruling is based on other existing rules.
There is a strong opinion whether wigs are permissable or not but either way, it is not a question of stretching rules and laws but rather whether permissable or not.
Once again, no stretching of laws here - rather their application.
Well, Jewish history in Europe speaks for itself. In some places, especially in but not limited to Eastern Europe, strictly Orthodox Jews were often limited to living in Ghettos.

But for the most part, even such Jews were farmers and tradesmen once they were permited to be. And they never worked en-masse on a basis of any religious commandments to overthrow or usurp a government.
All this for a handshake. Tsk. Tsk.
Once again, your claim is faulty. We women also greet with hugs and kisses. Furthermore, once upon a time the world wasn't full of homosexuals, as it is today - certainly not the Jewish world. Laws were not enacted when there was no concern for them.
Yet G-d put limitations on many things. This is a decree to enforce such limitations, plain and simple.

You don't believe in modesty? Fine? But your intollerant view of those that do is just that - intollerant.

Does this mean that this guy and some Israelis don't like Europe, or may not visit us?

Sounds like a good deal to me.

Tell that to Japanese men. :rotfl:

No problem. You're born there and you'll die there.

Live long and prosper.

Nice post, Abraham.

Just off here a bit.


I for one will be glad if the European union broke up, not only does it make less money than seperate countrys but also such stupid rules and laws that have to be impliments by all countrys, and most are contradictory.

I hate the E.U ive never supported it, i will never support it, the sooner it goes the better.

That makes two of us.
:up: :yep: :up: :yep: :up: :yep: :up: :yep: :up: :yep:

A sobering though steed for you.

We might have to one day pay Euro tax :o

You know, call me a cynic, but I wouldn't consider a site titled 'jihadwatch' to be the definitive, objective authority on the state of Muslim communities in Europe, anymore than I consider the suggestion that we're going to hell in a camelhair-weave handbasket as anything more than hysterical rhetoric by rather dull people with nothing better to do.

As I like to say:

Good luck Europe!

You're not a cynic. :nope: You're an ostrich. :yep:

I don't care if you want to close your eyes to the editorial and commentary content on JW's site but for heaven's sakes read the news items they link to, usually from established and accredited news agencies, with all of their faults.

If you've got something to refute against them, go ahead and spill it out.

I have a better idea. Study Islam. Read the Quran, Sunnas and Hadiths. Ignore me. Ignore JW. Ignore Skybird and other posters here. But do yourself a favor and get wise. Here's your starting point:

USC MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. This site at the University of Southern California is sponsored by the Muslim Students Association in the US.

You have no more excuses. What you don't know will hurt you.

I agree with AL here, James. what AL or me is saying is not that important. Form your own opinion, don't just copy the opinion of others. That also means: do not simply copy opinions of mainstream medias which are far from being unbiased in this question but mimic a sociological motivation to make a stand "pro" Islam. Don't pick for small pieces of info about Quran or Hadith or whatever, that are ripped out of context, but do a substantial study of it. There also is a lot of academical analysis on Islam, which maybe is even more needed for a beginning, since the material is so diverse and self-contradictory. I was confused and was led to false conclusions in the bginning, 13, 15 years ago, I admit. Those academical works that are able to proove their conclusions by refering to evidence and historical facts you can re-check yourself are the ones you can trust, to some degree.

Do you think I travelled and worked in the Middle East that much because I am fascinated by the Orient? Far from that! I hate the area, really. But since I first learned about Islam, I felt threatened by it, almost by instinct, so I sat down and learned about it, and then wanted to see for myself, at location. Later it was also a lot of money involved, admitted, but that is something different. First, it seemed that my initial sentiments were not justified and that it all is better than what I feared. But later, now, that I have more distance to all that diverse input, and do not concentrate anymore on the actual single experience and prioritize it no more over the background of information already accumulated, but see it all in one big context, I had to massively correct my first (before travelling) and my second (during travelling, and some years after) conclusions. My motivation to find out about Islam simply is no fascination for the Orient, but an attitude like "know your enemy". As I see it you probably do not know enough about it to form an opinion on whether you would want to see it as friendly or hostile to your society. So indeed, AL is right, do yourself a favour: start to learn, and trust nobody. you will not hear much positive about Islam from me, that is true. but keep in mind: you also will not hear much negative about Islam from Muslims and their representatives. Islam is extremely weak in terms of critical self-evaluation and self-honesty.

It was a stoney road for me to come to my final complete rejection of Islam. I had been positive baout it, I had been neutral about, I have been (and still are) negative aboput it. Do you think you can come to a comparable substantial evaluation with lesser effort?

I makde some assumptions about how much you have studied Islam. If these are incorrect, please tell me and accept my apology then.

There's more to it than meets the eye :shifty: check your PM box :yep:

red and understood finding now.

You're quite right Skybird. You know far more than I do, and what's more you know everything about my life and background.

Please accept my humble apology!

I'm not a fan of Jihadwatch and I would side with you on being wary of it as a sole source of my information on the 'islamic threat' - but having come down more or less the same stony road as Skybird to the same realization - and what he is calling for is quite correct. I've had my awakening moment with the whole Danish debacle - and I think it's not too selfish of Sky or myself to suggest that others look at this issue as objectively as possible, and soon. Not through Jihadwatch, perhaps, but at least as AL said - from the horse's mouth.

I think it's safe to say that your life and background is not something that Skybird knows. But your life and background really don't have any influence on the facts here.

Re: Good bye Europe
 

@ The Avon Lady:

You can't do my posting with a few one and two liners, an occasional three liner and one four liner and get away with it.
:D
I am glad that you would shake that person's hand. But I want to make sure that my argumentation is not directed at you personally but is nothing more than my opinion of a clash between a modern society and cultural/religious attitudes based on - in my view - archaïc rules.

You are fighting a point I did not make. I did not say that the limitation for the Muslin girl to shake the hand of any 12+ year old (Dutch) male is proof of inferiority of women in Islam. I said it is proof of disdain for the dominant culture of the host country, i.e. Holland. Which is not nice towards the Dutch. Realise that you might create the impression of being rude or even superior towards the autochtone population.

The problem is not your - or better: one's single act, the problem is the attitude behind it which may pop up in any interaction with autochtones depending upon the interpretation of one's own cultural and/or religious mores. The only logical consequence I see are: a) possible offensive behaviour towards autochtones; b) compromising one's religious interpretations; c) withdrawing into one's subculture.
All these attitudes can be found in cultural/religious minorities in Holland.

I was talking about "this kind of problems", I did not mean same-gender shaking hands but todays cultural and/or religious interpretations of age old commands, conflicting with another (dominant) culture. I am explicitly using the word "interpretation" because the Torah, the Tenach, the New Testament and the Qur'an were given/written in a timeframe that shaking hands did have a different meaning than it does today in Holland, that Jewish and Muslim minorities were not living in a modern European culture and that Jacob dreamt of a ladder towards heaven and not of an elevator. If one decides to adhere to 1.400 year old rules or 2.500+ year old rules one cannot escape the necessety of interpretation. This quote from Aish.com is proof that this is one of more possible interpretations: The operative words are clearly "permit" and "choose". The next quote was ment by me as an example of this.

I am surprised about your reaction on this example. I would certainly not include the possibility of "a holyman" (with or without the adjective "super"). I also would not say "cracked out of his wits" if the guy is strictly obedient to his religion. I would just suggest to fly El Al, they might have a solution for his problem.

Your words

First of all, I want to say that my two KLM examples are documentated and found their way to internal KLM-instructions.
I also want to stress that culturally or religiously weird or "abnormal" behaviour (in Dutch eyes on board of KLM) is quite common on intercontinental flights with many cultures on board and is therefor not just a problem with observant Jews.

Rules, rules, rules...
Wouldn't you call that a matter of interpretation?
Streching the application of rules? Fine with me.
Which is again something I was not stating.

I am not surprised that you do...
I may on this point give my views regarding this subject on the three great monotheïstic religions - warning people who don't know yet that I an convinced Christian (Protestant) - so probably not fully objective - but who is objective on these subjects anyway.
Fundamental/Orthodox/Extremist Judaïsm is the foe of modernity as much as Fundamental/Orthodox/Extremist Islam is, be it with one major exception that you (TAL) already indicated: the Jews "never worked en-masse on a basis of any religious commandments to overthrow or usurp a government." You formulated this line very carefully to make sure I can live with it and I can. You mean to say - if I may - that Islam has a much more missionary approach towards other cultures then Judaïsm, which is not missionary at all but - more passively - sees itself as an example for the world at large.
Both Judaïsm and Islam, which was heavely influenced by Judaïsm by early - and rather positive - contacts with Jews, are heavely depending upon sets of rules or commands that either formed or reflected but certainly strenghtened and codified the social mores of those times. As Skybird has argued (concerning Islam, and in other wording) that the strictest interpretation is the most valid one, but at the same time excludes a step into modernity.
Other than Judaïsm and Islam, Christianity is a religion without sets of rules. Christ formulated all the rules of the Old Testament into the first and major command: "Love God above all" and the second: "And thy neigbour like yourself", which means: "because in the eyes of God he is equal to you". All Christian behaviour, manners, rules etc. are considered man made interpretations of Christian mores within a certain time and place. Of course I know that there are Fundamental/Observant/Extremist Christian groups, but they are always small, never accepted by any major church or by Christian philosophical or theological thinking. They tend to be extreme conservatives and as much an enemy of modern society as their Jewish and Muslim counterparts, with whom they have at least their fundamentalism in common.
The absence of archaïc rules gives Christianity a great flexibility of inetrpretation of what God expects from mankind.
Christianity has however its missionary drive in common with Islam, which has often been exploited by Western imperialism - although Christ never gave any indication that Christianity should fight for worldly power or use the sword, but on the contrary subservancy towards the State as long as it did not actively fight Christianity. Combined with the absence of strict rules gives this the posibility to Christianity to exist if different cultures all over the world without the necessity to fight and dominate those cultures. That is in my view a fundamental difference with Islam, but I would be interested to hear Skybirds opinion about my analysis.

Exactly my words when I read this Aish.com OK, this was a cheap shot, but I couldn't let the opportunity pass to be sarcastic. The real problem is of course not the handshake, but the attitude behind it - as I remarked earlier.

Once again, you are fighting a point I did not make. I did not say that "you women" did not hug and kiss. Please do, just as your men. In your culture it's socially acceptable.

Oh no, Ma'am. The world is not "full of homosexuals", they are percentage-wise a small minority. And while I may agree with you that there are circles where homosexuality is en vogue, or that some can make a choice for a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle, you will agree with me that a substantial number of homosexuals were born and will die that way - as homosexuals. And I dare to say that the percentage of those homosexuals is probably equal all over the globe, with all races and in all times, including Cana'an in Byblical times. As far as that is concerned I can't believe the ancient "Jewish world" was any different than the non-Jewish world. Whether these old time Jewish homosexuals had the opportunity to practice homosexuality is of course another question.
You surprise me by saying in this context: "Laws were not enacted when there was no concern for them." There are as far as I know a number of references to homosexuality (Sodom, Gomorrah, even David & Absalon perhaps) in the Old Testament and practising homosexuality was forbidden. If you can agree with this it undermines your own statement.

If that is what you believe, that's fine. Still I would not say that "(t)his is a degree (by God) to enforce such limitations..." but that it is a human interpretation of God given limitations. I can agree that modesty is a virtue. I can not agree that the Bible therefor forbids a social handshake in the modern Western society. That this would serve to remind us "that what is forbidden in this instance is promoted elsewhere - i.e., within the exclusive context of marriage" makes me say: "All this by a handshake. Tsk. Tsk."

You suggest that I don't believe in modesty. To use the words you often ask others: "what are your sources?" My posting over the last 15 months on this forum? You have any further knowledge of my personality? I don't think so. Actually I may be more modest than you think, which makes your bald statement "Your intollerant view of those that do (believe in modesty) is just that - intollerant" litterally a non-sense prejudice (no offense intended).

Anyway, I hope that our argument will not make you refuse my hand if I would ever happen to meet you, whether in Israel or elsewhere...
:D

You fool. Can't you even read the complete set of paragraphs in a thread?

Hehe, and I still do not like DW. Hope you get a headache from knowing that.

And concerning that website, it may be interesting to know who the guy is that is running that site:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Not the worst guys to run such a project, I would assume.