Danish intolerance
The concocted controversy over Palestinian-Danish politician, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, shows how intolerant the Danish have become over religious observance. From today’s Guardian:
The 25-year-old social worker, student and town councillor describes herself as a feminist, a democrat, and a socialist. She has gay friends, opposes the death penalty, supports abortion rights, and could not care less what goes on in other people’s bedrooms. In short, a tolerant Scandinavian and European. She is also a Palestinian and a devout Muslim who insists on wearing a headscarf, who refuses, on religious grounds, to shake hands with males, and who is bidding fair to be the first Muslim woman ever to enter the Folketing, the Danish parliament in Copenhagen.
…
“This goes far beyond the extreme right,” says Toger Seidenfaden, editor of the Politiken daily newspaper. “Asmaa is insisting on the right to be a religious Muslim and that’s provoking broad debate among the public.” The key issue is the headscarf and whether it can be accommodated in parliament. This month Ms Abdol-Hamid gained the candidacy for a safe Copenhagen seat for the leftwing Unity List.
…
“Some Muslims don’t think it’s right for a female to act like this. They go to my father and tell him, get her married, get her married,” she laughs. “Others think you can’t be Muslim and Danish at the same time. Some of the Muslims and the extreme right are just the same.”
Insisting on the right to be religious and a politician, well ain’t that scary. The Danish establishment seems to have forgotten the basic ideals behind liberalism and tolerance.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs
You mean Danish, right? (feel free to delete this comment after you’ve corrected the post!)
Beat me to it!
The headscarf is a harmless affectation and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be accommodated in the Danish parliament. Refusing to shake hands with a man, however, strikes me as not just irrational but rude.
What is the thinking behind it? Something to do with lust?
The mistake is significant: unlike the Netherlands, Denmark was never much of an imperial nation, so never really had or felt the need to negotiate a compromise between the ways of different cultures.
No, the problem is she is mixing her personal faith with public life.
What should happen is all politicuians should agree to seperate religion from state and not allow personal faith to impinge on public decisions.
yes not very tolerant.
{but then neither is refusing to shake people’s hands. that’s a bit silly whichever way you look at it if you view yourself as a professional human being as opposed to a walking sex object. and dumb from a female empowerment point of view. }
i mean that refusing to shake people’s hands sounds intolerant to me.
Steve:
In what sense is wearing a headscarf an example of personal faith impinging on public decisions?
Would we even be debating this were the story about a politician who decided to wear a had to cover their bald patch?
Yes, I was quite struck – during the Church of Scientology fracas on Panorama – when their spokesman deliberately witheld his hand.
Defining debate by body gesture, including deliberate witholding of the equality that a handshake implies, or standing too close to someone, is as much about dominating the terms of the discourse as it actually is about the discourse itself.
The Dutch have always been a curious people, torn between the liberal republicanism of its merchants in cities like Amsterdam (who lent money to the Spanish even while at war with them), and the harsh Calvinist outlook of the majority of those who lived in the countryside. In the golden age of the Dutch Republic, great strides made in the humanities, arts and sciences sat side by side with horrific state-sanctioned torture.
The problem is that she is described as a muslim first. Why on earth we take seriously anyone from any religion who considers themselves a “religion” before a person is beyond belief.
The big issue is that she wants her religion to be at the forefront of her politics. Not on, in any way shape or form. And I would say this about a jew or a hindu or a christian or even a satanist.
Rumbold,
They are indeed, a strange, shapeshifting race who took over Denmark without a shot being fired, or anyone even noticing.
Oh, er.. please delete #10. I read it too fast.
Thanks Douglas Clark. I deserve that.
Rumbold,
Err no, you didn’t. I should have stuck one of these on at the end,
Young Mr Hundal will have some explaining to do later, I think. Still, he did post it at 3:57am.
I assume young Mr H is still abed
(Perhaps under the duvet is the best place to be after one’s confused Denmark with Holland)
I knew you were joking, but I still deserved that and more. Mon dieu.
It is not that long ago that most ‘repectable’ women in the UK wore a hat or headscarf when they ‘went out’. If you look at her picture, it’s really no big deal. What might be a big deal is if someone stood for election with full face covering. That would be pushing it.
Those North Europeans all look the same to me too.
Anyway, it shocks me that some otherwise sane people seem to think excluding this woman from politics because she wears a scarf and declines to shake hands is in any way acceptable or reasonable.
Doubtless they are the same people who bemoan the fact that Muslim women are inherently oppressed and never take initiative to involve themselves in society.
Then when one does, they say ‘ah yes, but she’s probably just an Islamist stooge who wants to introduce Sharia law and behead everyone.’
Then they learn that she’s a progressive liberal and they say ‘ah yes, but she wears a scarf on her head and doesn’t shake hands.’
It would be much simpler if they could just cut to the chase and say, ‘look, we hate Muslims and don’t want them in Parliament.’
Refuses to shake hands with males?
Unacceptable. Shame she had all the right credentials.
As for the headscarf its not a religious requirement, muslim women are told to dress modestly the hijab is not necessary.
Is it Islamophobia or just a clsh between secular and religious values?
Posting at 3.57am go to bed Hundal.
Kind of losing track of who is being sarcastic here…
“It is not that long ago that most ‘repectable’ women in the UK wore a hat or headscarf when they ‘went out’. If you look at her picture, it’s really no big deal. What might be a big deal is if someone stood for election with full face covering. That would be pushing it.”
A very good point. Half the problem is that people don’t realise or forget how things have changed and how quickly they change.
Even if she stood with her face covered, in the end she will win or lose courtesy of the electorate.
On a general note, the discussion regarding the headscarf, and the handshake is pointless.
What is more frightening is how frigthened people are -and how easily they are made to fear (and hate). On all sides.
In this particular case, lets not forget there is an election going on – and she is standing in a winnable. Just look at the shenanigans of our own senior politicians when it comes to elections.
Recall how Mandelson masterminded a smear against the Lib-Dems in a by-election (pre-1997) simply because the Lib-Dems had suggested there should be a Royal Commission on drugs.
I believe the line he took was that Lib-Dems would legalise drugs (implying all drugs).
On the basis of the above I would say there are genuinely intolerant people who haunt these boards – masquerading as progressives. You know who you are.
Or maybe you don’t.
On the basis of the above I would say there are genuinely intolerant people who haunt these boards – masquerading as progressives. You know who you are.
Or maybe you don’t.
Refresh your going to have to name and shame.
No I couldn’t.
That would be too much like Blair.
I think you mean soru and sonia, don’t you Refresh? Come on now…
Not telling
Go on.
Shall we all decamp to le Raj and throw forks at each other?
“On the basis of the above I would say there are genuinely intolerant people who haunt these boards – masquerading as progressives. You know who you are.”
I don’t know about “haunting” but you can count me as an “intolerant progressive” if you mean intolerant of dangerous superstitions.
Whoops! I’ve changed it from Dutch to Danish, my mistake.
Steve: The problem is that she is described as a muslim first. Why on earth we take seriously anyone from any religion who considers themselves a “religion†before a person is beyond belief.
Being religious is part of a person’s identity. As long as the person can do the job, it shouldn’t matter what they describe themselves as first. This is ludicrous thinking… like saying someone American can’t do a banking job here because they describe themselves as American than English. She is progressive, can do the job (by the looks of it), that is all that should matter. The electorate should judge her on that basis, not whether she shakes hands.
A progressive who refuses to shake hands with men. Thats a new one.
I’ve always had something of a Hamlet complex, seeing as I look suspiciously like my uncle and my father’s ghost often tells me to stab him even though he’s still alive, and I do chuckle a lot over the fate that befell rosencratz and gilderstein, but yes, the danish. Anyhoo, if you’re ever crazy enough to go there and not smoke nepalese temple balls or drink enough to lob off your lobes a la van gogh, you know, just there to see the windmills or what have you, the whole place reveals itself to be a seedy, sordid place indeed instead of the scene from bladerunner we see it as. So there you have it. No point to make after all
Ah, see I read Dutch. Hence the above. The danes have great dogs
Sunny,
Line 2, Netherlands?
Your friendy sub-ed
Or,
Your friendly sub-ed
Shaking hands is part of the job of being a politician. So the electorate should certainly take that into account when deciding whether or not to vote fore her. I personally would not vote for anyone who refused to shake my hand, especially if their reasons for such rude behaviour are irrational.
the issue is not about principle, but about degree. would it be OK if, say, it was the accepted way of saying hello in denmark to squeeze the other person’s bottom? we can all see how that might cross the line. if this lady doesn’t wish to shake hands or show people her hair i don’t see how it affects her ability to do the job. i feel differently about the niqab, of course, because that crosses the line and inhibits communication by hiding the face. i would say the same thing if someone wanted to go to parliament topless – it is not about principle, but degree.
i find it nonsensical that people question which of one’s identities comes “first”. surely it depends on the situation? it is also a common fallacy of the enlightenment to consider religion a “private” matter, whereas citizenship is “public”. this may work very well for christianity, which is about invisible, intangible symbols and theology, but doesn’t work at all well for religions where you are required to be a visible adherent, such as judaism, islam, hinduism and sikhism. would they be making this fuss, i wonder, with a sikh turban? with a hindu forehead-mark? or is this about muslims? i suspect the latter.
b’shalom
bananabrain
the issue is not about principle, but about degree. would it be OK if, say, it was the accepted way of saying hello in denmark to squeeze the other person’s bottom?
Poor analogy that BB. I take your point as the French do have a habit of kissing each other on the cheek when they greet each other, which i would be uncomfortable for myself. The shaking of hands is essential for her job I’m afraid. Also it is a form of sex discrimination.
The shaking of hands is essential for her job I’m afraid.
How? In India the standard form of greeting, doing a namaste does not involve shaking hands. I agree with David in that one is welcome not to vote for her if she refuses to shake hands. But for me, more important are her views on how she can improve and help the political system and contribute to Dutch society.
She is progressive in her views towards gays, the welfare state, the environment and women, that’s good enough for me with regards to work.
As long as we have bleedin’ bishops on parliament we can hardly talk about carrying your religious identity into politics. And objecting to the headscarf is just daft.
But can anyone tell me what the usual position is on women shaking hands with men? Is this general? And how does she deal with it? Just leaving someone’s hand hanging in the air is incredibly rude, almost aggressive. It must get tedious if she has to explain it umpteen times a day.
This is Europe not India. shaking hand is a custom, an important part of social intercource in Europe. What has India got to do with it?
I am aware of the difference iin customs throughout the world not all of them but I am aware of them. Miss Abdol-Hamid should shake hands with everyone, to refuse to do so is impolite.
Damn my spelling.
This is Europe not India. Shaking hand is a custom, an important part of social intercourse in Europe. What has India got to do with it?
I am aware of the differences in customs throughout the world not all of them but I am aware of them. Miss Abdol-Hamid should shake hands with everyone, to refuse to do so is impolite.
“Poor analogy that BB. I take your point as the French do have a habit of kissing each other on the cheek when they greet each other, which i would be uncomfortable for myself. The shaking of hands is essential for her job I’m afraid. Also it is a form of sex discrimination.”
This is getting sillier by the post.
Shaking hands is not a part of the job. Neither is kissing babies. The job of politicians should be to represent people, and for that it takes communication and interpersonal skills.
Actually ZinZin, how long is it since women and men have been shaking hands?
I may be wrong, but I believe you wouldn’t have to go back too far to see that men and women here did not shake hands. And do not do so in general.
In fact I would go further and say that men don’t seem to shake hands with each other except in a formal setting.
You could even argue, politicians use the practise to ingratiate themselves with the electorate (similar to the cynical kissing of babies).
So is being cynical part of the job of being a politician?
“She is progressive in her views towards gays, the welfare state, the environment and women, that’s good enough for me with regards to work.”
What are her other progressive views towards women, apart from her obviously progressive position on handshaking?
“Actually ZinZin, how long is it since women and men have been shaking hands?”
What kind of argument is that?
Don’t worry, she’s backward but only 50 years backward?
“Actually ZinZin, how long is it since women and men have been shaking hands?â€
What kind of argument is that?
Don’t worry, she’s backward but only 50 years backward?
Is it 50 years?
And is it backward?
As it happens, its a very good one to show the silliness of the argument.
Pastries. Danish pastries. Of course.
Shaking hands is really bad body language. It keeps two people making contact at arms length. Best thing ecstasy did for the Brits. Taught us all to hug. European way of kissing on both cheeks is a bit too luvvie for my liking, though.
Shaking is just weird. St Vitus Dance. How’s that a welcoming hello? And Dane Bowers isn’t Danish
Refresh I will tell you why I am making an issue around the shaking of Hands. I have Asperger Syndrome, as a result of this condition, well curse, I have become obsessed about social skills, personal relationships or interpersonal skills. If i refused to shake anyones hand that would be considered rude, yet use some religious dogma then thats alright then. Doesn’t make sense.
http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/index.php?s=asperger+syndrome
Unity gives a decent write-up about Asperger syndrome.
Refresh I have been spoken to about my conduct in work regarding inappropriate behaviour and inappropriate humour when i have been unaware of the offence that i caused. That is why i am amazed that the issue of refusing to shake hands with men is being downplayed. a progressive yes but one with serious issues regarding men.
Being religious is part of a person’s identity. As long as the person can do the job, it shouldn’t matter what they describe themselves as first. This is ludicrous thinking…
But surely faith is personal not public.
I employ staff, I don’t care if they are black blue yellow muslim hindu christian satanists whatever, I want to know can they do the job. I don’t agree with giving time to religious activities at work, otherwise, as one of my staff said, ” as a Jedi, i need May 4th off”.
Keep faith personal, out of public life. you can use your morals in public life, just not your faith.
chris c makes the most pertinent point.
The electorate should judge her on that basis, not whether she shakes hands.
exactly, and my thinking is that if someone chooses to believe in a made up concept in their own home, that is fine. If they then choose to present themselves as a member of a made up concept in public, a case of “an emotional crutch”, I would question whether that peson has the skills to look at issues analytically rather than let their personal faith impinge upon it.
ZinZin, thank you for that.
I’ve just taken you off the intolerant list.
For now, and on this issue
“chris c makes the most pertinent point.”
Which is?
It is indeed intolerant to be concerned about her headgear. And mostly, who in their right mind wants to shake hands with politicians or estate agents?
The Grameen Bank got round this all using the ‘Adam from the Apprentice’ US army style salute.
I think what male posters have beenn upset about is the implication of double standards – if she didn’t shake hands or hug with anyone that would seem more rational.
Far be it for me to imagine whats in her head, but her no shake stance does seem more out of the Tabligi or Muslim Brotherhood schools of etiquttee rather than that of someone who say, supports gay marriage.
“And is it backward?”
Well it’s hardly “progressive” is it?
Meanwhile I await the details of her “progressive” policies towards women and gays to which Sunny alluded.
this!
“What are her other progressive views towards women, apart from her obviously progressive position on handshaking?”
seems to me if someone’s a woman and muslim boom! we’re expected to have sympathy Automatically because of those two things. so – that’s why chriscc’s point seemed rather pertinent to me – there’s not much point saying she’s friendly to ‘gays’ without elucidating that.
and this hijab business – its very boring now
ChrisC the issue under discussion is how its been blown out of all proportion. Which I contend is part of the rough tumble of electoral politics.
I wasn’t aware we were discussing her politics. Its not as if you are being asked to vote for her.
Sonia – #57 thanks for the clarification. Its not always clear from your one-liners what you refer to.
#58 “seems to me if someone’s a woman and muslim boom! we’re expected to have sympathy Automatically because of those two things.”
I am shocked, disturbed and disheartened by that statement. Surely you’ve been reading comments on this subject ever since PP has been around.
This is all going a bit pear shaped.
Sunny, Post 30:
“Whoops! I’ve changed it from Dutch to Danish, my mistake.”
Sunny, Post 39:
“But for me, more important are her views on how she can improve and help the political system and contribute to Dutch society.”
Well, I suppose, given the problems she’s being having in Denmark, a quick move down the coast to Holland isn’t too much of an inconvenience. Bloody hell, how many words do they need to describe themselves, Holland, Dutch, The Netherlands?
Handshaking.
According to Wiki, it’s very popular in Islam, accompanied by the greeting “As-Salamu Alaykum”, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were a mano et mano thing. Is this right?
The only story I ever heard about handshaking was that, in Europe, at least it was about proving you weren’t holding a dagger or the like. But it has been sort of socialised into the context of ‘everyone is equal here’. Obviously, just before you get completely shafted, usually by your Bank Manager, or a Politician come to that.
Good post Douglas.
“pear shaped” well we are fast approaching the magical #73.
This is Europe not India. Shaking hand is a custom, an important part of social intercourse in Europe. What has India got to do with it?
Spot on, Zin Zin.
I mean, there are Hindu Fakirs who hang 100 pound weights from their testicles, so if the Danish are looking for a politician with balls……..
Her refusal to shake hands with males, a fundamental aspect of western social discourse, is a clear sign she rejects the values of her adopted society.
What else can be read into that? That she’s a fan of the islamic *mickey-mouse* club? Perhaps.
Gestures count for much, MUCH more than words. Her insistance on placing Islamic “values” ( not shaking hands) above the secular values of the western world she inhabits means she’s no business being in politics, because politics is all about legislating and enforcing SECULAR law.
We don’t hire bus drivers to fly planes.
Her refusal to engage with western people on the basis of their customs is undeniable proof she places the “higher” law above secular law; it tells us all we need to know about where her true sentiments lay.
This is one of the flimsiest ruses we see nowadays.
Her committment to leftist, progressive values is, thus, about as convinving as a gay man claiming he *really* loves women, their bodies, breasts and thighs, but will never have sex with one.
He loves women cuz he says so, you see.
Take him on his word.
This gal, Sunny, is the islamist far-right draped in leftist/progressive DRAG…. a very common sight these days.
Lift her skirts, though, and you’ll find something other than the progressive vagina and breasts she claims to have.
If you were to challenge her progressive credentials by asking her to denounce the treament of gays, women and minorities in majority Islamic countries, you’d draw a complete fucking blank.
If they then choose to present themselves as a member of a made up concept in public, a case of “an emotional crutchâ€, I would question whether that peson has the skills to look at issues analytically rather than let their personal faith impinge upon it.
steve, you’re welcome to then let the electorate judge on that basis. I don’t have a problem with that.
But I find it mighty silly to assume that just because she does not want to shake hands with those of the opposite sex, it automatically means she cannot do her job properly. The two are not related and any excuse to that extent does not wash.
Don’t worry, she’s backward but only 50 years backward?
How does one define backward? Are teenage pregnancies backward? Is binge drinking and puking up on the streets backward? How does one define backward and what is civilised in this context?
I would question whether that peson has the skills to look at issues analytically rather than let their personal faith impinge upon it.
Well this is rather amusing, since we’ve had a prime minister for ten years who was quite the devout catholic and still believes god will save his ass on account of going into Iraq. Our friendliest ‘ally’ is a President in grip of evangelical Christians and we have a House of Lords full of bishops, not even discounting the role that the Archibishop of Canterbury plays here. So this idea that we have complete seperatation of faith and politics here or in external affairs is ludicrous. And yet I don’t see a big campaign going to abolish the monarchy and the bishops and become a completely republican nation based on rigidly defined secular values.
Progressive vagina?!
That’s the best name for a riot grrl act I’ve ever heard
We don’t hire bus drivers to fly planes.
Is this meant to be an argument?#
because politics is all about legislating and enforcing SECULAR law.
Again, I wish people would think before writing… it really doesn’t help to have the conversation dragged down to such level of stupidity.
Law isn’t secular or religious – law is law decided on by lawmakers. It may be about religion or it may be about drugs control. There is nothing known as secular law.
Law isn’t secular or religious – law is law decided on by lawmakers. It may be about religion or it may be about drugs control. There is nothing known as secular law.
Huh? Of course there is Sunny, it is a form of Law tied to non-religous beliefs. If you can have “Religous Law”, you can have “Secular Law”. In fact if you took a few seconds to search Google before you posted you might have found a lot of articles on the subject.
We all post without thinking sometimes Sunny, you did so here.
Perphaps there is a big context here and I ought read all the postings to see the converasion that lead to this comment, but I cannot be arsed
TFI
Kismet, you’re on fire today!
I’m astonished that nobody has yet tried to claim that if she wants to be a Danish MP she should have to eat bacon every day for breakfast, because that’s the Danish custom, innit?
Although if she was Dutch she could probably get away with a big bag of skunk and some porn.
Sunny – Our PM isn’t actually a Catholic at all, but he goes to RC service because his wife and children are Catholics.
At one time the papers were full of speculation as to whether he’d convert to Catholicism when he left office.
“Others think you can’t be Muslim and Danish at the same time. Some of the Muslims and the extreme right are just the same.â€
… and there she is bang in the center refusing to shake peoples hands …
TFI
and there she is bang in the center refusing to shake peoples hands
yeah, because that really is about the only useful thing politicians do.
At one time the papers were full of speculation as to whether he’d convert to Catholicism when he left office.
point taken, but he still keeps citing god like every other day. I look forward to people putting forward the argument more forcefully that because Blair believes in God, he’s not fit for office. Or that Bush isn’t, given most people opposed to Muslim practices are neo-cons.
Some of the Muslims and the extreme right are just the same.
A Muslim woman who refuses to shakes hands with men is the same as a member of the BNP?
I’ve seen some overreactions on this blig, but that’s got to be in the all time festive 10.
TFI – you made me smile with your #71.
And it got me thinking about how we greet each other. Maybe we should have different methods based on gender, familiarity, mood etc. We could communicate a lot more of our intent rather than simply declaring that our right hand isn’t carrying a dagger.
In your case, to express a whole load of affection, I would squeeze your intimates with ferocious intent.
Its either that or tweaking of the nose.
Damn – gone past #73.
It’s ironic, isn’t it, how Preacher Tony, who insisted that his children get baptised in Nazareth, is the poster boy of the secular Decent Left?
Damn – gone past #73.
Oh you mean it gets worse?
I suppose we could be hopeful and say that it trails to a trickle after #73.
70-something comments but still no explanation WHY she refuses to shake men’s hands. Does anyone know? I’m genuinely interested.
I think the namaste should be universally adopted. It manages to convey good manners, while being totally acceptable to all faiths and cultures (BNP excepted).
The Friendly Infidel,
I tried Googling as you suggested. Does Google not work on the basis of the most relevant first? As there were 1,600,000 hits, I was surprised to find that the first page was mainly loopy or historical stuff. After that I gave up.
The definition of a secular society that I am most comfortable with is one where no one religion is given precedence over another, and that the laws, secular laws if you like, are drawn up on the basis of equitable treatment for everyone. Personally, I think that out trumps any religious law. Which, by definition, is going to favour church dogma, or more likely economic dominance when it can get away with it. The Protestant ascendancy in Northern Ireland is close enough in time and geography to be a reasonable example.
We need a far more fluid system of law these days than can be applied by people reading ancient texts. And adapting them as they see fit.
The definition of a secular society that I am most comfortable with is one where no one religion is given precedence over another, and that the laws, secular laws if you like, are drawn up on the basis of equitable treatment for everyone.
Let me stress this again. By definition any law drafted by lawmakers is secular law, so the law is the law. The woman in question is not asking for Sharia’h law, she is happy to be Danish and happy work within the system for good governance.
This is a problem I have with some so-called liberal /progressives – they spend all their time obsessing and being intolerant over instances such as this when the real problem are the Muslim Brotherhood types who would deny equality to gays, women etc.
People such as Asmaa Abdol-Hamid should be embraced because they open the door for further integration and the involvemment of Muslims within existing political systems. Otherwise you push them into the hands of Hizb ut-Tahrir kinds who argue that Muslims will always be discriminated against and should not participate in the political system.
As yet, all we here are lame arguments such as:
We don’t hire bus drivers to fly planes.
Yeah, we don’t. And?
Sunny – still waiting for the examples of her “progressive” policies – do you have any?
(And I will rise to your wonderful red herring!)
Of course binge drinking is “backward”.
But I’m not sure a ban on co-ed handshaking will necessarily sort it out!
Douglas, put it in quotes when you search, it forces the engine to look for the exact match. This reduces it down to 146,000 hits. While I’m on google tips, check out how to use “site:” and “inurl:” searches they are monster cool and the former incredibly useful. For instance this custom search shows that until today “secular law” as a combination of word only appears once on PP, and that was OP.
http://tinyurl.com/33zoyb
Refresh, the day I meet you I’ll remember to wear a cricket box
Sunny, that was funny, I suppose kissing babies is the other ‘useful’ skill, thankfully only deployed shortly before an election.
We need a far more fluid system of law these days than can be applied by people reading ancient texts. And adapting them as they see fit.
Now there is the truth, things are moving so fast that our system of law is creaking. I saw a great quote that stated that during the summer recess our MPs should be made to work in their county courts implementing the Laws that they passed, a principle in the software industry known as eating your own dog food.
TFI
Sunny,
People such as Asmaa Abdol-Hamid should be embraced
I’m not sure that she’d agree with you there
heh heh..throw forks to each other.
who here said they want to exclude her from politics anyway? people are still allowed to express their opinions are they not. obviously its silly for the danes to make a fuss based on a headscarf and even not shaking hands. i was merely making points ‘tangentially’ – why shouldn’t i express my views at the silliness of making a point about not shaking hands.
trust refresh to get all worked up. *there there*
85. heh good one.
Everyone should hug people they like and politely keep their distance if they don’t like each other
all politicians are suspect so i daresay ms. asma will turn out to be no different
TFI – you may wish to consider a prosthetic for the nose a la Tycho Brahe.
Let me stress this again. By definition any law drafted by lawmakers is secular law, so the law is the law.
Basically you are saying that the role “Lawmaker” is a purely secular construct, therefore they can only pass ‘secular law’ by definition? Can you not have non elected religiously inspired Lawmakers? i.e. isn’t the act of making Law is what makes one a ‘Lawmaker’? like the act of making holiday, is what makes you a ‘holidaymaker’?
I’ll get my coat.
TFI
Sonia – nothings tangential in PP it seems.
I thought your #58 was pretty clear.
Refresh, my profile is bad enough without making my nose bigger. I’ll risk a tweak, just consider stopping if the screaming gets to intense.
TFI
yes refresh..:-) i don’t see why because someone is female and muslim they AUTOMATICALLY deserve anything that any other human doesn’t..
i don’t mind if you find that shocking..shock away!
frankly refresh – you’re a bit like Anas in your Muslim obsession you are.
kismet – good one..ha ha
We could communicate a lot more of our intent rather than simply declaring that our right hand isn’t carrying a dagger.
I have to say that I find it absolutely amazing how violent we where in the past. I mean, we complain about knife crime, but we developed a social system to ensure that the other person wasn’t about to stab you … you have to assume that it was a real problem, not only that, but a problem amoungst rich people to!
We just have no idea how lucky we have got it these days … or what we could slip back to …
TFI
Sunny – People such as Asmaa Abdol-Hamid should be embraced.
I’ve Googled and struggled to find the “progressive” views on women and gays to which you referred.
Could you let us know where we can read them?
The Friendly Infidel,
Re 97.
It goes all the way to the top. The distance between the front benches of the government and the opposition in the Commons is exactly two sword lengths and one foot……allegedly.
http://www.aboutbritain.com/HousesParliament.htm
70-something comments but still no explanation WHY she refuses to shake men’s hands. Does anyone know? I’m genuinely interested.
Because she harbours supremacist sentiments, that’s why.
Of course, the prejudice is always presented as *religious obligations*.
Law isn’t secular or religious – law is law decided on by lawmakers. It may be about religion or it may be about drugs control. There is nothing known as secular law.
And you’re calling ME stupid ??!
The laws of the EU, Sunny, have long since been freed of religious diktats. The EU constitution doesn’t even mention Christianity. If you make no distinction between religious and secular law, then you shouldn’t at all mind if The Catholic Church drafts all legislation concerning abortion, birth-controle and such.
Like those Catholic priest-recruitment posters say; “Why not answer to a higher calling”.
This drag-progressive clearly places her ‘Catholic’ principles BEFORE the interests of rational, secular legislation. If she won’t even shake hands with non-muslim men because her religion says she shouldn’t, then how the hell can she be expected to promote and protect non-muslim institutions and legislation?
This isn’t about a handshake, it’s about where one’s true motivations lay.
Why can’t you see that?
If you can’t pierce the ruse, Sunny, then you are no different than those blinkered 90s progressives who galavanted about bestowing Knighthoods on religious extremists.
Christ I’ve had a Muslim memeber of parliament in my riding who’s been sitting for some four mandates now. She shakes everybody’s hand; male, female, veiled, non-veiled, Muslim, non-Muslim.
She is a what a progressive Muslima looks and acts like.
Before stepping out to go to work in the morning, she checks her *Halal* and her *Harem* at the front door of her house, where they remain until she returns home in the evening.
Her religion is entirely a private matter. She harasses no one with it.
If that is too much to ask of a Falwell-girl, and if said Falwell-girl sees Islam-as-a-whole-way-of-life, then that Falwell-girl should run for office in a majority Muslim country.
Besides, that’s where the protection of gays and women is really needed.
You see Sonia – you claim that – but the evidence before you is quite different is it not? I hold the opposite view.
That’s what shocks me. Not your views or inclinations.
Why compare me with Anas, when you can address me directly.
Obsession? No not so. False premises is what I am challenging.
This thread itself proves the opposite of what you claim. Why else 100 posts without addressing the opening statement – but happily discuss what she is wearing and who she shakes hands with – to the point of ridiculing her.
Even to the point of having her akin to the BNP.
I noticed you don’t challenge the outlandish.
TFI – a gentle tweak to screaming point it is then.
What is the opening statement?
That the Danes are intolerant of relgious observation?
Well, who can blame them?
I would be pretty intolerant of overt religious observation (to the extent of refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex) from someone seeking to become a lawmaker.
Sunny hasn’t come back with any examples of her “progressive” pro-women and gay policies her claimed on her behalf, so all I’m left with is the impression, which she clearly wants to make above all else, of her “devotion”.
(Oh, and what does TFI stand for?)
Huh I have a Muslim obsession, Sonia? Who doesn’t on PP? I mean, if you didn’t find Islam and the actions of some of its adherents especially of interest you’d get bored of PP pretty quickly.
ChrisC – that’s more like it.
Are there any other items/actions which are reminiscent of religious onservation in Danish political life?
TFI – a gentle tweak to screaming point it is then.
oooh, feel that peace and love
TFI
Anas, PP as it stands would not be sustainable. It would have to address a whole new set of participants.
Not to say – I don’t welcome it as a forum. Its great fun. Its like Cheers, so many characters.
TFI – it took a lot for me to even consider greeting you, this method seems to be a happy compromise.
Chris, I’ve absolutely no idea.
What does the ‘C’ stand for?
If anything I stand for the freedom to piss someone off without expecting violence in return, something that Refresh is struggling with today.
heh heh heh
TFI
C stands for my middle initial – Charles
There are plenty of others (ahem, Soso) who have an unhealthy obsession with all things Muslim. They really should get out more.
TFI – you know I am only joshing you. Don’t you?
Must admit the thought of tweaking your nose does bring a smile to my face.
Well lets face it the whole thread’s been playground material. It was doomed from the start.
Refresh, of course I do, and in return I hope know that I was doing the same in return
Believe me from the size of my nose, you’d need big hands.
As for the playground matterial, its a stupid subject.
Sonia is right, she is muslim and female, big fat hairy deal. Also Chris is right, where are these progressive policies that we are meant to endorse? She’s got a Gay Best Friend whom she cannot bring herself to touch for ‘religous reasons’. Wow.
All we are left with is a the statement that she devout … are we that desparate to find and classify ‘moderates’ I heard some chap on the Today program claim the Hamas leader was ‘moderate’? What a moderate joke.
The thread is a playground because the subject is a bit of a joke.
TFI
Sunny 82,
Has a solution for the avoidance of hand shaking.
“Asmaa Abdol-Hamid should be embracedâ€. OK taken out of context but food for thought.
Recently returned from a conference in Russia. Much backslapping and bear hugging when greeted. Enough of mamby pamby handshaking.
Identity, left leaning atheistic heterosexual meat eating male. I don’t make a big issue of it though and I have many friends who are none of these things.
I look forward to people putting forward the argument more forcefully that because Blair believes in God, he’s not fit for office. Or that Bush isn’t, given most people opposed to Muslim practices are neo-cons.
Well when I heard claims that Bush said that ‘god told me to do it’ my hair stands on end. Also when his father was in office and thought the Earth was 3000 years old, makes me feel sick.
There is nothing wrong with a bit of faith as long as you don’t let it cloud your judgement, or you enforce it on others. Perphaps this chick is able to make rational decisions without it being through the prism of Islam, but she is certainly enforcing her views by refusing to welcome people in the manor that that established in the Western world.
Hell if I was in Iceland and they wanted to rub noses with me, I’d happily do so. Provided that Refresh had let of my nose of course.
TFI
So, in the United States you are considered unfit for public office unless you declare a profound religious belief.
In Denmark, unfit if you do. Do the Danes apply this across the board?
In the UK, a strong position either way is considered rather infra dig, but not to the point of being a major hurdle. As Campbell put it, ‘We don’t do god’
I prefer our system. If forced to choose between the other two (assuming the Danes are consistent) I’d go for the secularist approach – surprise, huh? Not to exclude believers – that would be unreasonable, but to check on their priorities.
A question along the lines of:
‘If the expressed will of the electorate was in conflict with your perception of god’s will would you
a) Go with the electorate and accept post mortem consequences from a supreme being with a rep for serious grudge-holding.
b) Go with god, where were the electorate when he made the world, eh?
c) Resign.’
I’d love to hear an honest answer from George Bush, Ruth Kelly and the lady in question.
Sid,
And here was me thinking that sosos’ knowledge of Byzantine steam engines was the high spot of the thread. The odd, and strangely attractive thing about PP threads is that they can wander between Greek Fire, squeezing ladies bums, shapeshifting Dutch, amateur nose jobs and progressive vaginas, and still be semi coherent. I agree with Refresh, it’s a sort of virtual Cheers.
Soso: Because she harbours supremacist sentiments, that’s why.
Of course, the prejudice is always presented as *religious obligations*.
Clearly you must know her motivations better than us without having even talked to her or know anything about her. She refuses to shake hands with all men, not just non-Muslim men. It has nothing to do with religious supremacism, plenty of Orthodox Jews do the same.
The laws of the EU, Sunny, have long since been freed of religious diktats.
In that cases Soss – answer me this. To be consistent you would then surely advocate we cut our close ties with the United States or move away from their foreign policy since domestic policy (re: the abortion debate now) and foreign policy is frequently dictated by religious beliefs and many openly evangelical groups lobby the US govt.
right?
soso,
You might want to glance at the Irish constitution sometime.
‘In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, …
Tycho, how much contact do you have with your best gay friend?
And by the way
“Sonia is right, she is muslim and female, big fat hairy deal.”
would have been the best statement to have made on the subject, if it had been made.
the refusal to shake hands is not about “when in rome”, or the norms of the western world. it’s deeply deeply personal. who you allow to touch your body is not something you can “leave at home”, because your body accompanies you into the public domain. for example, i am permitted (monthly cycle allowing) to squeeze mrs bananabrain’s behind. nobody else is permitted to do so, full stop. otherwise, both she and i would have something to say about it. the same goes for, ah, viewing privileges, as it were. my more devout cousins do not shake hands with the opposite sex, because from their point of view, hands or bums makes very little difference, because of the great seriousness with which they view physical contact and gender relations.
the point is that your body is your own and is off-limits by default, except to your immediate family and spouse. once this general principle is established, it is a matter of where you draw the line. with that said, some people distinguish between “parts of the body that normally remain covered” and parts that don’t, whereas some people rely upon the embarrassment factor – at least a few rabbis of my acquaintance will shake a lady’s hand if it is held out to them rather than embarrass her by not taking it, although others will not. personally i don’t care how someone does this. if someone makes namaste to me, or bows, than i know about that. if someone wants to shake hands, fine by me. if someone wants to do euro-kissing, fine by me. if i meet someone who i wouldn’t expect to shake hands with (e.g. wearing a hijab or other head covering) i wait and let them make the first move. actually, in my experience muslim women do this rather charming thing of a slight head-bob combined with placing their hand over their heart and i find that to be more than adequate for conveying respect.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Spot on Bananabrain.
There are plenty of others (ahem, Soso) who have an unhealthy obsession with all things Muslim. They really should get out more.
Is voting four times for a SECULAR female Muslim M.P. considered an obsession, Sid?
Four terms in a row and she’s doing a great job. Her name is Fatima Houda-Pepin, in case you’re wondering. Her views on radical Islamists are no different than mine, although she’s better at flushing them out than I am.
She spearheaded last years opposition to the implemetation of Sharia law in both Québec and Ontario, and she took to task the faux-progressive Wahas who, like our little Dane, talk left, but walk right. Her opinions on sharia-creep were taken very seriously, but had they been expressed by someone such as I, they’d have been labelled islamophobe.
It never ceases to amaze me how well-meaning, critical thinking people can be thrown so completely off the tracks by “a little lamb of god” who blithly spouts a few clichéd progressive terms.
Yep, an individual who, for “religious” resons, won’t so much as shake hands is expected to uphold legislation, laws and a constitution that fly in the face of everything she believes in, eveything she holds dear in that same religion.
There is a sucker born every minute.
Sunny – examples of her “progressive” views towards women and gays to which you alluded?
Found any yet?
Wait. Did anyone else burst out laughing when they read her beliefs? Supporting abortion and homosexuality, but then refusing to shake a man’s hand due to RELIGION?! Typical confused Muslim I’d say.
I’d decline her application due to mental instability and incapability to prioritize.
The scarf isn’t even an issue.
plenty of Orthodox Jews do the same.
Sure, lets keep them out of office too.
TFI
As so often, b’brain has put it with forensic clarity.
We’re still a bit short on detail, but if it is the case that Asmaa has adopted a liberal position on abortion rights, homosexuality and (presumably) the other issues which exercise progressives so much, but that she has chosen to retain the religious obligations relating to modesty, diet, charity and prayer, then isn’t that the itjihad which so many are asking for?
As a politician she is, I think, obliged to make her reasons clear to the electorate. But having done so, she is under no more obligation to uncover her head or shake a man’s hand than she is to down a pint or eat a bacon butty.
So long as she can answer the question in #117 with a or c.
but then refusing to shake a man’s hand due to RELIGION?! Typical confused Muslim I’d say.
No it’s not. This is where people get so goddamn confused. This is about choice people, CHOICE.
Giving women the CHOICE to go forward with an abortion, giving homosexuals EQUALITY under the law and the CHOICE to live how they want to live. Having the CHOICE not to shake other people’s hands if you don’t want to.
It’s not about supporting them, and people really should be careful before handing out the ‘confused Muslim’ Ms_Extreme, without knowing them better.
t never ceases to amaze me how well-meaning, critical thinking people can be thrown so completely off the tracks by “a little lamb of god†who blithly spouts a few clichéd progressive terms.
You’re boring me with your tripe Soso. You haven’t answered my question and frankly you’re deluded if you think your views are progressive/liberal.
Bananabrain – hit the nail on the head as usual, thanks.
Refresh @ 108 – Where everybody knows your nom de plume
Sunny, and people have the CHOICE to dislike and disapprove of her based on her DECISIONS and ACTIONS.
TFI
Soso, you wouldn’t come across as an ‘islamophobe’ if you didn’t also attack every other manifestation of Islam.
We will have to wait and see how Asmaa Abdol-Hamid performs if elected. If she lives up to the liberal principles she professes, all well and good.
She will almost certainly come under pressure from more conservative muslims and this will be the true test of her liberal outlook ( handshaking excepted ).
Let us wait and see.
Chairwoman
“Where everybody knows your nom de plume ”
We can be the regulars that complain about the rif-raff they’ve started letting in.
Sunny, and people have the CHOICE to dislike and disapprove of her based on her DECISIONS and ACTIONS.
Sure they do. But the reasoning is spurious, as Bananabrain has demonstrated above.
We have politicians who have affairs but we say their private life is seperate from public life. We have politicians who openly lie about policies, but they’re allowed to get away with it.
I don’t see how touching her hands, her own body, should be a public good. That’s up to her, not you folks, on which part of her body she should let others touch. A woman’s body is her own property, not public property, and she should have the choice to set the terms of engagement, not you folks.
The Danes claim to live in a meritocracy and they claim that they want openness and tolerance, that’s why the published the cartoons right? Now I’d like to see tolerance towards someone who doesn’t follow their cultural norms (within the law), and do their duty in whatever line of work they choose.
I’m sorry Sunny, are you debating that she’s not shaking hands with men because of CHOICE?
So then this means what? — on religious grounds, to shake hands with males
If she’s going to choose to adopt certain religious rules and disregard others (which are far more important than the ones she’s disregarding), to me it is shady.
If you read up on Islam, non-sexual physical contact with the opposite sex carries a far lesser charge than that of homosexuality and abortion.
Her prioritizing is based on choice, fine. But then she needs to state that not shaking hands is just as much of a personal choice as it is religious.
Oh and typical confused Muslim to me means someone who prioritizes nonsense religious rules that are derived from testament over legitimate serious guidelines from the Quran.
Asmaa Abdol-Hamid has an impressive record of defending liberty and freedom. On the 29th October 2005, on behalf of 11 separate Muslim organisations, she heroically defended the principle of free speech by filing a complaint to the police against the Jylands posten newspaper, as it had published 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed shortly before.
Again acting on the behalf of 11 Muslim organisations, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid decided that she would again defend liberty and free speech by taking the case against the Jylands Posten Newspaper to the European Courts of Human Rights, as the first ruling had shown that the newspaper had acted within Danish Law. This was done in March 2006, and as far as I am aware, a decision is still pending.
Unfortunately, her strong convictions in free speech were misunderstood. The Unity List party, of which she was a member, began to distance themselves from her. They also went on to say:
“The message Asma sends is not the primary message of the Unity List Partyâ€
Poor Asmaa was also misunderstood by the Socialist People’s Party. Not realising that she was in fact a socialist, as well as a staunch defender in free speech (as long as your views don’t conflict with hers) , Karsten Honge, their spokesman, said the following:
“We are rooted in free thought, liberation, tolerance and Humanism, and I think that if you are trying to limit free speech in Denmark by banning simple drawings as those in question, then you belong with the reactionariesâ€
Asmaa has also shown a deep belief in Western values. In May 2005, a young man named Amar Hasan was shot outside a nightclub by a bouncer. When an Iman named Abu Laban said publicly that this should be settled out of court by a blood money payment, it caused an outcry in Denmark. However, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid wrote a letter to the editor of Fyens Stiftstidende on the 16th June 2005, supporting the Iman’s decision.
Despite her problems in the political arena, Asmaa has had her own talk show, and now appears as a co-presenter once a week on one of Denmark’s main channels. She has often fiercely defended Muslim women’s right to wear the hijab, though hasn’t quite yet got round to defending the right for Muslim women not to wear the hijab, though I’m sure that’s merely an oversight on her behalf.
She has also reduced greatly the irrational fears of some Danes that Islam is a colonising power in Europe. Recently she said to the Danish Press that “Denmark is in many ways an Islamic societyâ€.
Unfortunately, she still has some harsh critics. One such group, which has been very scathing of her, and has unfairly suggested that she is not all she appears to be, is the Iranian Women’s Rights Movement. Fortunately, most people are aware that this organisation is completely Islamophobic, and their views should be dismissed without any argument or evidence.
Well, one can only admire and support Asmaa, And she is, at the end of the day, just your average socialist liberal totalitarian devout Muslim. Bravo!
Additional Sources:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2006/April/todaysfeatures_April14.xml§ion=todaysfeatures
http://www.qmt.org.au/news+article.storyid+83.htm
http://news.sawf.org/Lifestyle/10251.aspx
Thanks Derius,
It seems that the handshake thing is not as innocuous as some think. It would appear that she is truly, deeply a true believer.
She has homosexual friends. Are these just non-Muslim? Will she support the rights of Muslim homosexuals? Will she defend the rights of any individual to accept or reject belief in a particular religion? Will she defend the right for free, open debate of any belief system? Will she fight for equality between the sexes?
She has clearly, on past form, no interest in freedom of expression. Did she condemn the Imams who added their own sordid cartoons and then toured the middle east fomenting violence against Denmark? Did she condemn the murder of the nun? Did she condemn any of the violence against Danish institutions?
Is she fit to enter the parliament of a liberal secular democracy?
As I have posted earlier, if elected the true test of her professed liberalism will come when she is confronted by conservative muslim opinion over particular issues. I have my doubts that her alleged progressive thinking will shine through.
The focus still has to remain on that Asmaa is not being accepted on the grounds that she covers her hair and doesn’t want to shake hands with a man. Shouldn’t her appearance and greeting be insignificant in an electoral representative – quite worrying!!!
If on the above grounds the Danish parliament are up in arms even before she has been elected, and are not basing it on those fears you have already mentioned about facing conservative muslim opinion but on superficial nonsense that is a real worry. Her appearance and greeting are not physically offensive, so what are the parliament so afraid of….in a democracy the electorate will decide if she enters based on her campaign and proposed policies not the institution.
If a member of the BNP was voted in as an MP i would be more than mildly irritated but recognise their right to campaign and represent their constituency, however much i disagree with what they stand for. – Outrageous motions get passed through parliament frequently from the centre parties and not fringe elements – in any country… a weapon of mass destruction anyone??????
Jeevan,
As you point out the electorate will of course decide. She may get elected and as far as I understand her true views she will probably reflect minority views.
Just as we may have a few BNP members in the future, the majority of elected members will not be white, anti-Semitic supremacists and will have no influence on policy.
The discussion here is whether she is really liberal in her outlook. Will she support minorities eg homosexuals and particularly muslim homosexuals?
Given the party she is allied to she couldn’t possibly represent the views of conservative muslims since many of these would be antithetical to the party she purports to represent.
I don’t give a fig about her headwear or her apparent distaste in pressing the flesh. If I was in her ward I would be asking her what she stands for and making my decision whether or not to vote for her on the answers I recieved.
Lithcol
“The discussion here is whether she is really liberal in her outlook. Will she support minorities eg homosexuals and particularly muslim homosexuals?”
A lot of commenters would like it to be but the discussion here is not about her liberal outlook. Its about tolerance in Danish society.
I think everyone actually knows that.
Derius – good googling!
It looks like Sunny has simply taken the Grauniad’s word about her “progressive” views (since he has pointedly failed to offer any independent references to them).
Not so progressive after all, it seems.
“A lot of commenters would like it to be but the discussion here is not about her liberal outlook. It’s about tolerance in Danish society.”
Well it’s about both, isn’t it?
If the Danish wish to be intolerant towards (from Derius’s evidence) this not so progressive woman then who can blame them?
Count me amongst the intolerant.
Naser Khader describes Asmaa Abdol-Hamid as an Islamist.
Speaking at a conference on the theme; “Islam in Democratic Societies: The Struggle Between Radical and Moderate Islam and the Future of Islam in the Westâ€. Tufts University in Boston ( April 2007 ) Khadar stated;
“Islamists use the victim mentality as leverage to gain influence, and the left wing and the Unity List love to sacrifice. Therefore they have now also nominated an Islamist to Parliament,†( Unity List are aloose bunch of hard line communists ).
Khader has been a popular Danish MP for some time. He is Muslim and founded the organization Democratic Muslims. Like other progressive Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere he has received threats of violence from radical ( intolerant ) Muslims.
On the whole Denmark is a tolerant country, but there is no room for tolerance of the intolerant as Khader has pointed out many times.
I think it is very unfair to label Danes (and Norwegians) as racists and intolerent. I stayed in Copenhagen for a few days, and I was very impressed with this beautiful country. It is a vibrant cosmopolitan society: you see a lot of mix couples, and couples with adopted children from overseas. People are friendly and treat you with respect.
I believe it is important for foreigners conform to the basic rules of the host nation. Covering yourself and not shaking hands is considered rude in Europe. Think about the reverse: not covering yourself is considered rude in parts of the Arab world…
Multiculturism is a process that helps ease culture shock, and I am all for it. But people who take confort from it should make an effort to understand and engage with the host nation, not alienate themselves with their own version of culture or religion.
ravi’s got some good points – the irony is when people want to maintain their own culture without realising everyone else wants to do the same too, and then it becomes a fight of whose culture?
anyway why is everyone pretending all of a sudden that politicians haven’t lost elections or ‘been accepted’ on the basis of their constituents’ prejudices! we’ve seen all the ‘scandals’ about UK politicians. and of course people shouldn’t use silly things to gauge who they want to vote for but they do – all sorts of silly things – from what they look like, colour, religion, sexuality, blah blah.
the whole political system is fucked – i would have thought that is really the pertinent point.
anyway, never mind all this. i’m off to write some more about the iranian women’s movement and find out if the attempts to get divorce reform in bangladesh were ever successful. i had no idea but apparently my dear country didn’t let women initiate divorce proceedings. of course the reform is opposed by the Mullahs who say it would undermine the Islamic faith ( pah) and anyway the country is in a state of chaos now so who knows what the hell happened. *these religious men really have a lot to answer for* undermine islamic faith indeed – so unfair, we women have to struggle for this.
i wonder if to get more attention to these causes we should explore the flipside: dress up as niqabis and claim the mullahs aren’t allowing us to practise our religion and how intolerant was that? i daresay that’s what islamic feminists have cleverly figured out is a good way to get their rights: well you said that’s what it said in the religion..
The interesting question is how does Ms Abdol-Hamid manage to combine her opinions. If she beleives her religion obliges her to wear a headscarf and not shake hands with men, why doesn’t she believe that her gay friends should be stoned to death and that ‘what goes on in other people’s bedrooms’ is vitally important to the state? If she is sincere in her first opinions then she must logically only hold the second set of opinions as applying while she lives in a nonmuslim state. The injunctions about homosexuality and other sexual conduct have every bit as much validity as those about covering her head etc. The only difference is that she can’t immediately apply them; unless, of course, like most of us, she is a civilised hypocrite and only thinks those orders that suit her are immediately relevant. However, until I knew which was true, I’d be dubious about voting for Ms Abdol-Hamid and the hidden agenda that may go with her support of her party’s policies
@Roger:
That’s standard behaviour for all the Abrahamic religions.
liberal: scripture is meant to be read and acted on at the individual or personal level.
conservative: scripture is meant to be read and acted on at the family or community level.
theonomic or theocratic: scripture is meant to be read and acted on at the national or global level.
There’s nothing in any of the scriptures which definitely says which interpretation is right: it’s something the reader brings to the text.
Liberal or moderate conservative christianity is so dominant in the west that people sometimes forget about what happens when stuff like ‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’ gets read and acted on bu a community or nation.
good questions and points roger
I agree, Soru, but some muslims seem to believe in all three of the ways you list all at the same time: they hold liberal views, because they don’t live in a muslim state, but campaign to apply the conservative interpretaion for muslims in that state and would like to bring about the theonomic, often without realising that that is how they think.
Having studied history I am all too aware of what the history of chritianity in the west has been for most of its history- I’m rather more worried about a revival of theonomic christianity in response to theonomic islam than I am about thonomic islam in itself, in fact.
“the hidden agenda that may go with her support of her party’s policies”
Not so hidden according to post #138
“Not so hidden according to post #138″
Here bloody here.
Still she is quite pretty, has a GBF and has huge ears.
TFI
What does “TFI” stand for?
How can you tell the size of her ears if they’re under a headscarf, TFI?
Ooops – how dumb am I?
“How can you tell the size of her ears if they’re under a headscarf, TFI?”
The discussion here is whether she is really liberal in her outlook. Will she support minorities eg homosexuals and particularly muslim homosexuals?
Not really. The fact that she is progressive on certain issues is a bonus. But as Jeevan pointed out, it doesn’t matter what her views are, it matters whether we are intolerant towards those views or not.
I’m sure I don’t have to repeat what voltaire said. Why is that invoked only when its white men drawing cartoons and not when it’s a Palestinian woman wearing a hijab? No contradictory stances please, I stand by my original point.
as a jew, i operate on all three levels of this:
1. personal, in that i must choose when to take responsibility for exercising my own judgement and when to judge that a question is out of my competence.
2. community, in that there is a religious principle that “all jews are responsible for each other” and i must consider my place as a member of the community and how, as a member, i wish this community to develop.
3. theonomic (good word) in that my actions and those of my community help to shape the world we live in, whether at a spiritual or physical, quantum or macro level. all my actions should be directed towards tiqqun ‘olam (rectification/repair of the world/cosmos) and the bringing of the Messianic age and every action i carry out affects this, even at the most infinitesimal level, for good or ill.
in this, no religion is different, nor is any belief system or none – where we differ is in how we see our roles and what we see as our objectives.
b’shalom
bananabrain
“The fact that she is progressive on certain issues is a bonus.”
Sorry to ask again, but what is the evidence for this?
“But as Jeevan pointed out, it doesn’t matter what her views are, it matters whether we are intolerant towards those views or not.”
Well, if they are as #138 suggests, then I am.
Are you not intolerant of Nick Griffin, for example?
So Sunny defends her refusal to shake hands with men on the grounds of choice. How about discrimination as you are defending her belief that she can treat 50% of the population differently. Equality means equal treatment.
A progressive should not treat anyone differently on the grounds of their race,religion,disability or gender.
Of course she should be able to stand as a hijab-wearing, handshake-avoiding “progessive” if she wishes.
But no party should be *obliged* to put her on their list, and of course no-one is obliged to vote for her.
If people decided that her progressive stance on handshaking was a reason not to vote for her then of course that’s a perfectly legitimate point of view.
Sorry to have to ask this, ChrisC, but if there is no source to suggest that her views are progressive but instead hidebound, what gives you the right to insinutate, because that’s what it is – insinuation, that her politics are racist to the extent of Nick Griffin’s? Unless you want to come clean and say that being a Muslim is all the qualification it takes for you to reach that conclusion.
Perhaps instead, it is evidence that you’re not a raving mysoginist and Islamophobe that we should be asking for, from you?
You have every right to be intolerant of opinions, Sunny. after all, by voting for one politician you are being intolerant of the opinions of others. You have no right to be intolerant of the right of others to hold them. We don’t know what all Ms Abdol-Hamid’s opinions are; we do know that the ones we know about appear to conflict with one another, so it’d be useful to see how and why they conflict if we were thinking of voting for her.
ZinZin – agree with you.
But, as #138 points out, she is not progessive at all despite Sunny’s unsupported assertion.
sid – I’m not saying that.
I was responding to Sunny’s point that “it doesn’t matter what her views are, it matters whether we are intolerant towards those views or not.”
I’m simply suggesting it probably does matter what
those views are.
@Sunny
That’s because atheists come in 3 flavours:
liberal: scripture should be rejected at the individual or personal level.
conservative: scripture should be rejected at the family or community level.
atheonomic or atheocratic: scripture should be rejected at the national or global level: ‘One nation against God’.
Obviously, this all gets mixed up in questions of race and culture, foreignness, but there is as much hostility caused by the similarities between the Abrahamic religions as by the differences.
Some people just have their buttons pressed by that kind of stuff.
This thread is absolutely absurd. Danes are intolerant. Muslim women refuse to shake hands with men yet is considered progressive?
As ChrisC asks why should we tolerate discrimination on the grounds of religious obscurantism?
So Sunny defends her refusal to shake hands with men on the grounds of choice. How about discrimination as you are defending her belief that she can treat 50% of the population differently. Equality means equal treatment.
If a hammer hits a nail and there is no one there to read it, does it make still make a point?
I was taking a wide guess about the ears, seems appropiate seeing as everyone is taking a wild guess about her views … which if infered by her actions do not seem very progressive at all.
Chris, you now get my ‘what does the C stand for’ joke now???
TFI
whoops last point + smiley face
TFI
This thread is absolutely absurd. Danes are intolerant. Muslim women refuse to shake hands with men yet is considered progressive?
There’s that cracking sound again!
TFI
How about discrimination as you are defending her belief that she can treat 50% of the population differently.
Are you proposing making both hetero and homosexuality illegal?
Lets not forget the MCB have a few GBF’s now, they are model of progressive moderation.
If you squint, doesn’t she look a tiny bit like Innayat wearing a headscarf?
TFI
Hi Sunny, I could seriously say this is the first time I’ve had any differences with your analysis. A lot of what Asmaa says reminds of me someone saying “I’ve got a lot of (insert stereotypical group) friends but yada yada” .
This handshake thing is an issue with me, because it has nothing to do with Islam, only to do with one’s outlook. For example, I lived in Singapore where many Malays covered their heads and were certainly not used to any kiss on cheek stuff. But it was a non-issue in that, if I did kiss them on the cheek it was never interpreted as me looking at them as sexual objects. They knew it was harmless and so recognised that. My intent was harmless and never sexual. I would be cool if they said “please don’t kiss me” because I understand that ‘culturally that it may go too far’, BUT it has nothing to do with religion, and the counterparty understands that I am not trying to sexualise them in any manner. With the refual to shake hands I cannot understand how this is sexual or commodification of women. As Chairwomen has already said, maybe then a Namiste is more appropriate.
But if Asmaa also want to engage with her wider Danish community (which she’ll have to do!!) does she not feel oblidged to also engage with a cultural manner that they understand? I do believe so. As a politician she needs to engage with everyone and if she is so rigid about something so simple, then there is a problem.
Its one thing to look at a pious muslim who truly wants to help the world by doing good and be positive and modern. Its another for dogma.
I agree. I have a second cousin who married a Danish lady and has lived there for 20 years. I spoke to my aunt who goes there to stay and she says that the people there are very friendly, tolerant and nice. My cousin has had no problems at all living there. Isnt it funny how people who claim to be against stereotyping and generalisation can do nothing but stereotype and generalise about an entire group of people. I think I know why — they are actually bigots and tribalists themselves.
If you read up on Islam, non-sexual physical contact with the opposite sex carries a far lesser charge than that of homosexuality and abortion
Good point which should lead people to ponder the women’s motives.
She claims to have “resolved” thorny issues such as homosexuality ( which merits the death penalty in Islam) as well as other *heavy* subjects such as abortion, yet still hasn’t resolved such minor details as shaking hands.
That’s akin to claiming you’ve mastered advanced geometry and calculus, but still can’t add two and two.
Convinving, eh?
By the way, Asmaa is featured today at “Islamonline.org”, the Muslim brotherhood propaganda mouthpiece. This is the same website managed by none other than the Qaradawi who is ON THE RECORD as saying homosexuals should be killed. So our charming progressive, who claims to “tolerate” homosexuals, is featured in a run-on puff-piece, a puff-piece she’s no doubt aware of but most likely doesn’t object to, at a website that advocates killing homosexuals.
Yet, she is considered Left and progressive whereas oufits such as the BNP, that DON’T advocate killing homosexuals, are classed “far-right”.
Could someone help me out here?
“Islamonline” gives her a loud and enthusiastic two thumbs up, by the way!
And this, for Sunny, is an example of a moderate.
The title of this thread leaves me wondering, as well.
Why are the Danes being portrayed as intolerant?
It isn’t they who’ve refused to shake her hand, it isn’t they who’ve transgressed the other, it isn’t they who’ve committed an aggression, so why the hell are they being demonised?
Th
Gosh the sound of that hammer is deafening, can’t you hear it Sunny?
TFI
But Sahil, she’s Palestinian and not South/Southeast Asian. It may have more to do with Arab cultural norms rather than religious standards, which aren’t monolithic in any case.
But her detractors here have already made the decision that because she chooses not to shake hands, admittedly a poor career choice for a Western politician, she’s an Islamofascist!
“But her detractors here have already made the decision that because she chooses not to shake hands, admittedly a poor career choice for a Western politician, she’s an Islamofascist!”
Not quite that bad, but have you read #138?
And #178.
While we wait for Sunny’s “progressive” evidence it seems the opposite case is mounting up!
The popular and respected born in Syria (Syrian mother) – Palestinian( father ) – Danish politician Naser Khader describes Asmaa Abdol-Hamid as an Islamist. This evaluation is not based on her head gear or refusal to shake hands, but on her past conduct as he calls it ( such as outlined in post 138, there is more).
He like me doesn’t care one way or the other what she wears on her head. He does though think she is rather extreme in her refusal to shake hands with men.
The rather partial report in the Guardian is just one more example of the decline in journalistic standards.
I don’t understand the term Danish establishment. Danish politics is very fluid and there are always new political groups being formed. Naser Khader has just formed another one to counter the right.
Sunny I assume you are tolerant of the intolerant views of HuT and the BNP to name but two groups in this country who spout cretinous crap.
Yes Denmark is tolerant and Asmaa Abdol-Hamid will stand for parliament in 2009. Will she be elected? Two years is a long time, foot in mouth comes to mind.
Sid #180, Yes I agree too many people are also saying she’s a nut job too quickly. I really do agree with that. But I myself am getting confused about what is a Muslim? My dad is a muslim, my sister is, my mum says she is, but I don’t believe her, and I am not. I’ve got loads of friends who describe themselves as muslims, so whats going on! I’m totally confused. BTW I’ve never of handshaking being a religious issue, cultural yes, but never religious.
ChrisC, have you seen the froth flying in 64, 100, 118, 124, 178, 150, 153, 115? yeah and 178?
Straight outta Harry’s Place…
sid – is #182 also an example of “froth”?
Why is #178 froth?
Is the website referred to nothing to do with Qaradawi?
Or is he classed as “porgessive”?
She claims to have “resolved†thorny issues such as homosexuality ( which merits the death penalty in Islam) as well as other *heavy* subjects such as abortion, yet still hasn’t resolved such minor details as shaking hands.
That’s akin to claiming you’ve mastered advanced geometry and calculus, but still can’t add two and two.
that’s froth, pure and simple, as is pretty much everything posted by “soso”.
I love the yells of Islamaphobia in the morning.
Well its the afternoon, its still the morning somewhere.
TFI
In that cases Soss – answer me this. To be consistent you would then surely advocate we cut our close ties with the United States or move away from their foreign policy since domestic policy (re: the abortion debate now) and foreign policy is frequently dictated by religious beliefs and many openly evangelical groups lobby the US govt.
I’ve no quibble with that statement whatsoever. The point you miss is this; GERRY FALWELL AND GANG HAVE NEVER, EVER, EVER CLAIMED TO BE PROGRESSIVES.
They’ve never engaged in any deceit whatsoever, they’ve never claimed they were “leftists”, they’ve always laid their cards on the table in full view of all. Had they not done so, then, and ONLY then, could they be considered the equivalent of your Asmaa.
See the difference?
It’s not those that make no secret of their religious agenda we should fear, but rather those with a militant religious agenda who attempt to hide, dissimulate and mask it behind an odious façade of progressivism.
Also, Sunny, as a homosexual I’ve got a pretty good sense of who and/or what represents the greatest danger to my security and personal safety. You discuss this women and the viscious, murderous homophobia of her religion as though it was all an abstract debate with no bearing on reality.
It isn’t.
And anyone aware of what’s happened in oh-so-tolerant Holland with the situation of gays and Muslim gay-bashers ought to know better.
So if you wish to engage in high falutin’ moral preening, Sunny, would you mind doing so at some other group’s expense, or on someone else’s back?
Please.
A friend of mine, a gay and former muslim ( his family wanted to kill him), gave me a tip that all should keep in mind when playing the parlour game of “spot-the-moderate”.
A moderate, modern, progressive muslim is one who refuses to perform the Haj out of protest against Saudi Arabia’s atrocious and notorious human rights record.
In other words, the moderates are those who place secular-based human rights and freedom of belief over and above religious concerns and obligations.
When you meet Muslims who embrace this position, you’ll then know you’ve found your moderate.
And in my opinion, that’s an excellent rule of thumb.
I love the yells of Islamaphobia in the morning.
Palestinian woman chooses not to shake hands with men she’s not intimate with. So she is called non-progressive and every possible insinuation about her political motives are made regarding her religion.
You can call it arachnophobia, if it makes you feel any better.
in this, no religion is different, nor is any belief system or none – where we differ is in how we see our roles and what we see as our objectives.
The difference I am getting at for the moment are the strategies of argument: the rhetoric and the logic.
Without focusing on you personally, there are a lot of Israelis who would treat these two questions very differently:
1. should we eat shellfish?
2. how should we treat the people of Galilee?
To answer them, they would use different arguments, different baseline assumptions, different styles of thinking.
Poeple are complicated and not strictly logical.
That means it is a mistake to assume too much about hwo someone deals with the second type of question if all you know is how they answer the first.
You might miss out on an ally, or perhaps a chance to have an useful argument about a real and important point of disagreement.
One more thing, Sunny, this star candidate is of the very same mind set and uses the very same tactics deceptions and language as your chum Osamma Saeed.
I read you exchange you had with him on the thread about the “terrorist monkey”.
When push came to shove, you saw him reveal his true agenda, didn’t you?
After an exhaustive effort and much prodding you never got a single straight answer from the guy.
Jagdeep I don’t we’ve even got to the stage of discussing intolerance in Denmark (or Norway) or anywhere else other than in the Islamic world.
I may have missed it of course.
But I do think there is tribalism at work and not in the way you presume.
Refresh I like your style of writing posts.
Where you make one statment in each sentence.
Then hit the space bar and say your next line.
Like this.
It gives the impression that you’re saying something earth shattering and profound.
When really you’re not.
Even though the isolation of your final sentence is supposed to hang in the air with profundity.
When really they make me laugh.
Yes indeed there are many bigots and tribalists in the world.
Of which I am aware.
Although I will end like you with a gnomic utterance.
I think you know what I mean.
sid – are you deliberately avoiding responding to (non-frothy) #138?
Still not sure why #178 is supposed to be frothy?
Does she participate on a Qaradawi website or not?
If she did, would that be “progressive” or not?
ChrisC
I also noticed how you are quickly distancing yourself from the Nick Griffin insinuation. Was it made on the spur of the moment, or is it the kind of thing that’s been marinating in your kitchen since last Christmas?
Profound, Jagdeep.
Absolutely.
Profound.
TFI
OOOHHH! Sid!
Earlier it was cries of arachnophobia, now its personal acts.
Who drew first blood?
TFI
you flatter yourself.
Soso,
Well, she’s only a candidate at the moment. I would be surprised, given the interest here, that the Danes themselves wouldn’t want copper bottomed guarantees from her that her liberalism is anything more than a pose. Equally, and assuming it is her partys position, I’d be astonished if they had not already considered that possibility. I expect she’s going to have to find answers to some pretty thorny questions. Still and all, the seat might be a shoo-in for all I know.
Jagdeep
“Refresh I like your style of writing posts.”
That’s nice. Nothing particularly profound, nor are they meant to be.
Just a sign of boredom from seeing the sort of trash that passes for debate – from time to time.
No Sid, you misunderstood me, partly due to my sloppy typing.
“I also noticed how you are quickly distancing yourself from the Nick Griffin insinuation. Was it made on the spur of the moment, or is it the kind of thing that’s been marinating in your kitchen since last Christmas?”
That is a personal attack on ChrisC, perphaps I’m wrong.
Besides I do flatter myself. Do you have ANY idea how good I look in a suit? Damn I’m hot.
TFI
sid – did you read my #168?
To repeat: I was responding to Sunny’s point that “it doesn’t matter what her views are, it matters whether we are intolerant towards those views or not.â€
I was (by using Griffin as one of many possible examples) simply suggesting it probably does matter what those views are. I wasn’t suggesting she held similar views.
Which is not to say that she does not hold views equally unpalatable.
(As suggested by #138, #178 and #182.)
Oh shit, I think I’m having an attack of Coulrophobia!
I’m certainly having an attack of adhominenattackophobia
Coulrophobia, that’s a new term for my lexicon
Thanks sid!
TFI
Peace, Refresh.
I’m off for a long weekend in Scotland in an hour, going to be visiting a whisky emporium in Edinburgh, enjoy yourselves guys, until next week, I’ll drink some single malts for you.
Sat Sri Agal you handsome devil!
soru,
1. should we eat shellfish?
2. how should we treat the people of Galilee?
1. anything from “yum yum!” to “issur min-ha-Torah!” via “eurgh, it’s got mandibles, but i fancy a big mac”.
2. galilee? you know the galil is part of israel proper, not the occupied territories, right?
b’shalom
bananabrain
Soso
You forgot to give us the link from Islamonline.org
Here it is:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1178724215680&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout
How being reported as a news item on a website relates her to Qaradawi – I’ll never know. You are deceitful.
I would suggest people go read it.
With regards all the other stuff you’ve been posting, I am now inclined to go find out for myself.
Let us have the links which you are using.
Same or similar tactics from ChrisC who now is using #138 as his gospel on everything. Has anyone had the time to check out #138.
Why does the intolerance question arise? For the answer go read the article linked.
Jagdeep I shall be there Monday evening if you fancy a TFI squeeze.
Ahem – I’m not using #138 as my gospel.
If you recall, I asked Sunny to provide some evidence of the “progressive” views which he asserted this woman held.
None has been forthcoming.
Rather, other people (including the Derius #138) have come up with evidence to the contrary – in addition to the prima facie / common sense prejudice (for want of a better term) that someone unprepared to shake hands on religious grounds is unlikely to be terribly progressive in other matters.
I have not “checked out” #138 beyond confirming that it is a reasonably accurate precis of the articles to which he links at the bottom. I have not personally contacted the Iranian Womens Rights Movement.
Therefore, while not gospel, only Derius at #138 has so far produced any kind of evidence of this woman’s views, progressive or otherwise.
“She claims to have “resolved†thorny issues such as homosexuality ( which merits the death penalty in Islam) as well as other *heavy* subjects such as abortion, yet still hasn’t resolved such minor details as shaking hands.”
It would be perfectly possible for Ms Abdol-Hamid to believe taht the state had no right to interfere with adult sexual behaviour but for her personal behaviour to be affected by her upbringing so that she preferred not to shake hands with men outside her family. However, the fact she refuses to shake hands on a matter of principle and can abandon the rather more directly expressed principles governing sexual behaviour suggests that there is some confusion in the principles she actually espouses.
I agree with everything soru is pointing out. Only to add that reading people investing massive symbolic importance to rituals, making a point of assigning identity labels and checking if someone you suspect lacks your level of faith professes correct beliefs is something I find reassuringly familiar.
Get the shaky hand man from Banzai to sort her out
Soru #190
“Without focusing on you personally, there are a lot of Israelis who would treat these two questions very differently:”
1. should we eat shellfish?
2. how should we treat the people of Galilee?
By treating the two question differently could we mean
1. how should we treat shellfish?
2. should we eat the people of Galilee?
ooo i miss shaky-hand man. that was such a great idea. he should run for parliament.
b’shalom
bananabrain
This thread should have died at #73
Sunny – why don’t you put it out of its misery?
what, because we’re talking about shaky-hand man? dammit, refresh, you’re such a bigot when it comes to crap post-pub tv. hehehehe
b’shalom
bananabrain
Bananabrain – not so. Its because that is probably the best bit. It took 210 posts to get there.
And you should be fair – I do not even know who shaky-hand man is.
Who is he?
ChrisC
You’ve been fooled (that’s putting it mildly). You’ve definitely been deceived or are deceitful.
Having read most of the tripe from you and Soso (and of course Derius #138) on trust, I finally go to follow up the links in #138. They do not support Derius #138, they do not support your assertion:
“I have not “checked out†#138 beyond confirming that it is a reasonably accurate precis of the articles to which he links at the bottom. I have not personally contacted the Iranian Womens Rights Movement.”
I would recommend every reader to double-check what ChrisC proposes as fact or evidence.
I am not sure whether I want to explore the Byzantium steam engines or the 11th century lead-acid battery technologies so confidently proffered to PP by Soso.
Why – I am not sure you can trust a word they type.
2. galilee? you know the galil is part of israel proper, not the occupied territories, right?
Fair point, I was aiming for an Old Testament/Occupied Territories riff, should have said Judea or Samaria.
The argument I was trying to make remains: some people apply the same weighting to different types of argument for both of those types of question, some don’t.
‘Byzantium steam engines or the 11th century lead-acid battery technologies’
Without reliable links, I’m thinking Von Däniken.
Refresh, Don,
As far as the Byzantium steam engines are cocerned, they did exist but in a fairly unsensational form:
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1942.htm
It was essnetially a toy.
The batteries may have been real:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_11.htm
It has been suggested they were used for electroplating, although I can’t find a link to electroplated ancient artifacts.
I should check my typing, but I hope the meaning is clear enough, doh.
douglas,
Thanks. How could I have forgotten Hero? Double d’oh.
Still, scarcely a Byzantine ‘mastery of steam engines’, though.
I think the jury is out on the batteries. Although I don’t deny scientific development has anomalies and side-lined moments of forgotten genius.
BTW,
Do we now hold the record for furthest ever off topic?
I whole-breastedly agree with Roger.
It just doesn’t make any sense to me. You reject things that you’re supposed to be doing, but yet you make a hoo haa of things that are not terribly important in the religion. If that’s what’s getting her the attention and into office, I reckon she’s a smart cookie and the rest of us dumb.
Provoking a whole community in order to expose their prejudices and intolerance may make you look like a hero, but will still cause the rest of us undeserved negativity.
Don,
@227
Nice one.
I think we do.
Refresh – I agree with you but I am not offering any facts or evidence.
I have been asking fruitlessly for evidence of the progressive views Sunny claimed for her and I Have cited in good faith the contrary evidence offered by other
Commenters.
How about discrimination as you are defending her belief that she can treat 50% of the population differently.
Are you proposing making both hetero and homosexuality illegal?
Soru are you saying Homosexuality is a choice? My view is that you are either homom or hetero through biology/genetics. Human sexuality is not a choice. I would make being NBi-sexual a crime as thats just being greedy.
“Provoking a whole community in order to expose their prejudices and intolerance may make you look like a hero, but will still cause the rest of us undeserved negativity.”
Please please tel me you are being sarcastic.
#177: “I think it is very unfair to label Danes (and Norwegians) as racists and intolerent. I stayed in Copenhagen for a few days, and I was very impressed with this beautiful country….”
True enough – but I wish they would make their booze a bit less expensive – 50 kroner (£5)/half litre ( which is LESS than a pint) – and that’s supposed to be cheap by Scandinavian standards !!
Refresh. =)
Smells of victim mentality doesn’t it?
Ms_Xtreme
I am not sure what you mean.
Whachoo mean bled? Why did you think my comment was sarcastic?
Why on earth would one want to shake the hands of infidels is beyond me?!
N.B. I have it from a good source that as a result of what was lost in translation, we’ve got ‘gays’ instead of ‘happys’ or happy people to be precise.
chrisc: I have been asking fruitlessly for evidence of the progressive views Sunny claimed for her and I Have cited in good faith the contrary evidence offered by other
Commenters.
She says she believes in abortion rights and she believes in legal equality for homosexuals, that to me signals progressive views, doesn’t it?
Soso – please stop frothing at the mouth as usual, it’s most annoying. Just because IslamOnline did a hatchet job on her from the Guardian piece and other sources doesn’t mean she is Qaradawi’s best chum. Stop trying to draw my attention to such brainless arguments.
The point here about intolerance is this, which I alluded to above. I’m sure I don’t have to repeat what voltaire said. Why is that invoked only when its white men drawing cartoons and not when it’s a Palestinian woman wearing a hijab?
I’m not saying I endorse her views on everything. She may or may not be progressive from a Danish viewpoint. Although from an American viewpoint, where the Conservative right is against equality for gays and is anti-abortion, she is a liberal.
The point here about intolerance is why, as a Danish citizen, she is shunned by the political system just because she doesn’t shake other people’s hands. That isn’t a reason enough, as it has been repeatedly pointed out.
To this extent her views are irrelevant, like in any democracy dedicated to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
I’m not opposed to Nick Griffin in that I’m against his participation in the political process. I just want to challenge his lies head on. If she lies, we do the same… but she should play a part as equally as others. The public have a right to reject or embrace her.
To me this is akin saying that someone with abhorrent views should not be allowed to be part of the political system. I absolutely don’t believe in that. I wouldn’t ally myself with them, though she isn’t a raging homophobe or Islamist, but that doesn’t mean they’re denied the opportunity just because they don’t shake hands. That line of argument is the for the stupid, and I don’t buy it.
ChrisC
“Refresh – I agree with you but I am not offering any facts or evidence.
I have been asking fruitlessly for evidence of the progressive views Sunny claimed for her and I Have cited in good faith the contrary evidence offered by other
Commenters.”
The problem is ChrisC you have had no evidence and if you are using comments on PP as evidence then I can only imagine that you are naive. I would have to be very generous to imagine that.
You would have got away with it had someone (it just so happens that it was me) not gone and followed up those links in #138.
There are plenty of others like you who frequent PP with little more than a sense of their own bigotry.
And there are an equal number happy to let it stand.
2. should we eat the people of Galilee?
You mean, how do we best serve the people of galilee?
‘With apple sauce’ is not a good answer.
refresh – Derius would perhaps have done better to post this link, which seems to be his underlying source (if not his own blog).
Not an unbiased blog (to say the least), admittedly, but the assertions are referenced in detail there.
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/04/05/asmaa-abdol-hamid/
Meantime, I am still awaiting ANY evidence to back up Sunny’s original claim regarding her “progressive” views.
Any luck with that at all?
“Offensive language warning” applies to the above blog, so I’m not surprised he didn’t link to it directly!
Personally I think she’s being made a scapegoat for people’s frustrations and prejudices, since Muslims are unfortunately the “monsters of the moment” in the minds of many here in the West. I recently had to deal with a colleague singling me out for a lecture on the evils of the hijab/burkha, despite the fact that it’s basically an Arab Muslim custom in origin and I had already explictly stated that I am neither.
The lady concerned could just do a “salaam” gesture with her hand if she wishes to say hello. There are plenty of different ways to politely greet someone, beyond shaking their hand.
Bottom line: Mountains, molehills, etc.
ChrisC
“Not an unbiased blog (to say the least), admittedly, but the assertions are referenced in detail there.”
But I presume that it is the basis of your own bias?
Its clearly a far right hatchet piece. But even then there is nothing there but opinion. No facts no evidence.
Give it up.
Jai
Welcome back.
“Bottom line: Mountains, molehills, etc.”
I wish it was, it seems to be a very deep malaise.
It may be a far right hatchet piece, but there seemed to be plenty of facts (though as I don’t read Danish I can’t check the newspapers cited – can you?)
Am I biased against someone who puts religious belief (any relgion) ahead of social convention? Yes. Absolutely. No question about it.
Of course it would help your case if you or anyone could provide ANY evidence at all of the “progressive” views which Sunny claimed for her.
Any chance of that??
You are the self-appointed guardian of PP comment standards, after all. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up that rather large piece of missing evidence.
(Giving up now for the weekend.)
zzzzzzzzzz
whats the big fuss about, its easy enough to google things for yourself – everyones got different opinions though.
I’m sorry but no one is denying Miss Abdol-hamid her right to stand for parliament or her right to free speech so drop the Voltaire argument.
As ChrisC and other have indicated in this thread there is a whiff of the SWP-Islamist alliance. Or at best a stupid application of diversity policies.
Considering she is already a town councillor the danish political system can hardly be said to be shunning her.
for example this article on the islam online site demonstrates views amongst feminists are divided – which is to be expected.
there is a lot of ‘emotional-ness’ on this thread – i don’t know about being ‘shunned’ – politicians are used to controversy and people being suspicious of them and in my opinion thrive on it, or at the very least they know that is part of the challenge. she’s had her talk show so obviously knows how to handle herself.
good luck to asmaa, she’s clearly a brave strong woman who knows what she’s doing. of course that doesn’t mean people will automatically support her – she will have to win that support based on what policies she puts forward.
it seems to me what the objection on this thread is actually about is really dissatisfaction with the perception that hijab seems to cause as much controversy in denmark as the niqab causes elsewhere.
250 above – i meant that views amongst feminists on asmaa – are divided.
zzzzzzzzzzz
“As ChrisC and other have indicated in this thread there is a whiff of the SWP-Islamist alliance. Or at best a stupid application of diversity policies.”
And I thought you’re obsession with social mores was a consequence of your condition.
Refresh I am currently on the sick due to a colleague at work bullying myself. So no cheap jibes about my disability. As your mother may have told you don’t mock the afflicted.
Sorry to hear that.
What are you doing about the bullying?
i think we’re in dire need for a ‘its a sunny afternoon everyone!open thread’!!
it’s possible to racially conflicted and happy
skin up sone…
oh they are so cute those baby tigers!! *awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*
“Personally I think she’s being made a scapegoat for people’s frustrations and prejudices, since Muslims are unfortunately the “monsters of the moment—
Yes, that explains everything, isn’t it? I for one am tired of this narrative. This is not a question of tolerance, but of integration. You would be forgiven to think that ‘asian issues’ are about muslims. Most of the posts in Pickled Politics are about muslims. Asians are very diverse, and that’s without even including our east asian neighbours. Yet, it feels that it’s muslims who have a hard time integrating in Europe. Why? Because racists and bigots – god bless them – do not really distinguish the different types of “pakis” and minorities.
Her refusal to shake hands, or her part in the Danish cartoon debacle, shows that she and others just do not get it. No wonder nationalistic parties are on the rise. Blaming everything on racism and prejudice is in my view lazy analysis, and perpetuates intolerance on both sides.
“The point here about intolerance is why, as a Danish citizen, she is shunned by the political system just because she doesn’t shake other people’s hands. That isn’t a reason enough, as it has been repeatedly pointed out.
Sunny,
If that was the only reason she was being shunned by the political system, then I would agree with you. But her unpopularity in Denmark largely stems from the fact that she was outspoken against the Jylands Posten Newspaper in the Danish Cartoon controversy, and this has been taken by many in Denmark that she puts her religious beliefs ahead of freedom of speech in what is largely a Secular country. So it all comes down to the fact whether you believe that the paper had the right to print those cartoons. Being a Secularist myself, I personally believe that they did.
Refresh,
In my previous post, I was trying to show that the assumption that she was a liberal may not be true. I cannot prove, and the links that I gave do not prove, that she is not. But there is some evidence that suggests that she may not be. I actually hope that she is genuine, because if she is not, and it is later shown that she is not, then this will have a very damaging effect on community relations in Denmark, and that is in nobody’s interests.
The reason that I am slightly suspicious (and another reason for my first post) is that during the Salman Rushdie crisis, a petition was signed by a number of Iranian’s in exile (most being muslim), upholding Salmon Rushdie’s right to freedom of speech. It also warned of the dangers of religious intolerance, which could clealy be seen in their homeland. Clearly, most of these petitioners were genuine progressive muslims, successfully integrating their personal faith and the notion of human rights. Please compare that to Asmaa’s reaction, when confronted with 12 cartoons in the Jyllands Posten newspaper.
Well it has been an interesting debate, and if we disagree, then so be it. It would be boring if we all agreed every time anyway!
Have a good weekend everybody.
Derius
Thanks for your last post. Thanks for the clarification for what some have presumed to use as evidence.
With regards, and without re-opening the Jyllands Posten can of worms, the cartoons, there are many many people who saw them as racist, and deeply offensive. I am amongst them.
There was a lengthy debate about it – as you can imagine – here on PP.
She had every right to stand up against what the JP attempted to do. She has also every right to lodge a complaint to the Police and take it to the European Courts.
To me those actions were entirely justified and within the confines of the legal and democratic system. To vilify for being offended is not a way forward for the Danish politics. Its rubbing salt into open wounds.
“To me those actions were entirely justified and within the confines of the legal and democratic system. To vilify for being offended is not a way forward for the Danish politics. Its rubbing salt into open wounds.”
Except that we know that the Danish imans added two very offensive cartoons to stir things up against “their” country. Guess who commited blasphemy?
“Except that we know that the Danish imans added two very offensive cartoons to stir things up against “their†country. Guess who commited blasphemy?”
And for that they should be lined up against a wall. But from a personal perspective – I’ve yet to see the evidence for that.
I was hoping we wouldn’t re-open it all again.
OK, that’s a can of worms for another time, then!
Derius, could you help us clear up a simple matter?
Ravi points to the addition of 2 unpublished cartoons:
‘the Danish imans added two very offensive cartoons to stir things up against “their†country’
When the matter was reported to the Police and it was rejected, did they also investigate these additions; and if they did what did they say about it?
Otherwise lets leave it.
Ravi you have hit the nail on the head. Now let it lie.
the nail or the head?
Refresh, it is well documented. The iman’s name is Akkari. He and other Danish imans produced a dossier which included not only the 12 cartoons but other (very offensive) cartoons which were never published in Denmark. And they went to the arab world to show how badly they are treat in intolerant Denmark. This is what caused the uproar in the arab world… the cartoons were actually printed in Egypt and Iran a few months earlier without any riots. And for crying out load, why is it blasphamous for non-muslims to draw cartoons of the Prophet?
Of course, when they were pressured by the Danish media, Akkari admitted that these extra cartoons were sent anonymously by one person. So the whole country was to suffer because an anonymous emailer, and a group of Imans who should know better.
Opening a can of worms? It is useful to know the context, which is lost in the usual muslims-are-victims narrative. I am a religious person, but I value secularism and freedom of speech. It is clear that muslim activists abhor these ideals, and that is the root of the problem.
Refresh,
I know where you’re going with that, and it will open up that proverbial can of worms!
The general consensus is that we leave it, so I think it best if we call it a day for now.
Another day, perhaps.
go ravi go
Ravi
I had not followed it as closely as that.
“Of course, when they were pressured by the Danish media, Akkari admitted that these extra cartoons were sent anonymously by one person. So the whole country was to suffer because an anonymous emailer, and a group of Imans who should know better.”
If that is the case then they should be ridiculed, and drummed out of their vocation – as leaders by the people they purport to represent. That is the campaign I’d much rather support.
“And for crying out load, why is it blasphamous for non-muslims to draw cartoons of the Prophet?”
Its not.
“Opening a can of worms? It is useful to know the context, which is lost in the usual muslims-are-victims narrative.”
You see I would go for this last comment. But the truth is different. Here is a woman who is being castigated for standing up. She is no victim – but she is a target.
Whether you like it or not there are victims in this world.
As for being religious, that is a choice as it should be for anyone.
The popular and respected born in Syria (Syrian mother) – Palestinian( father ) – Danish Muslim politician Naser Khader is a target of Islamacists. He has received death threats for his views and has an armed guard. Seems par for the course for progressive Muslims in Europe.
Intolerance by some none Muslims in Europe has nothing on the murderous intolerance of Islamacists.
I hope Asmaa Abdol-Hamid will continue with her progressive agenda and does not come to any harm.
The Danish imams and their antics aside, I don’t have any problems with a woman who (democratically) complained about cartoons that I also saw as racist caricatures. She is within her rights to do that as the campaigners did to stop the BBC broadcasting Jerry Springer. She didn’t start killing people or burning effigies, she is working within the system and she has the right to register her protest. Yes or no?
Secondly, Zinzin, she is only on the far left because, as the article points out, the mainstream left shunned her because of the JP and handshaking controversies. I think that was stupid and intolerant of them to do so. We’ve kept in power a PM for 10 years who has led a war which has led to over 500,000 extra people dead. Which is the bigger crime?
Derious: and this has been taken by many in Denmark that she puts her religious beliefs ahead of freedom of speech in what is largely a Secular country.
The two are not incompatible… but if people then don’t like her, they simply have to not vote for her, rather than shunning her like she is now.
Of course it would help your case if you or anyone could provide ANY evidence at all of the “progressive†views which Sunny claimed for her.
As I said, irrelevant. I’m dedicated to protecting the right of people to participate politically and have freedom of expression (incl religion). That is the real issue of tolerance here.
Secondly, Zinzin, she is only on the far left because, as the article points out, the mainstream left shunned her because of the JP and handshaking controversies. I think that was stupid and intolerant of them to do so. We’ve kept in power a PM for 10 years who has led a war which has led to over 500,000 extra people dead. Which is the bigger crime?
Thats lame why bring Iraq into it? No one is denying her a right to participate electorally she is a town councillor a fact that seems to escape you. Why should the mainstream left accept her its up to them who they allow into their parties. Labour got rid of the Militant tendancy and Tories can remove fascists from their respective parties they don’t have to accept any tom,dick or harry who fills in an membership form. No one is censoring her in fact you conceded that she has sought to censor.
Finally Sunny refusing to shake hands with men due to some religious dogma is not progressive at all.
Cant win an argument bring up something else i seem to remeber that you told me off for using this particular tactic.
Secondly, Zinzin, she is only on the far left because, as the article points out, the mainstream left shunned her because of the JP and handshaking controversies. I think that was stupid and intolerant of them to do so. We’ve kept in power a PM for 10 years who has led a war which has led to over 500,000 extra people dead. Which is the bigger crime?
Thats lame why bring Iraq into it? No one is denying her a right to participate electorally she is a town councillor a fact that seems to escape you. Why should the mainstream left accept her its up to them who they allow into their parties. Labour got rid of the Militant tendancy and Tories can remove fascists from their respective parties they don’t have to accept any tom,dick or harry who fills in an membership form. No one is censoring her in fact you conceded that she has sought to censor.
Finally Sunny refusing to shake hands with men due to some religious dogma is not progressive at all.
Can’t win an argument bring up something else. I seem to remember that you told me off for using this particular tactic.
Why Why Why bring Iraq into it?
How long have you got ZinZin? You are irrational – accepted no argumented no evidence. Perhaps you should rest!
Derius
“I know where you’re going with that, and it will open up that proverbial can of worms!”
I am sure it would, but in pursuit of the truth it would be more than useful to know.
With regards Ravi, I’ve accepted his contribution in good faith. But I feel time has come where we should expect evidence.
The question of the Police could be quite important. If the additional 2 cartoons came anonymously then it would also be interesting to identify the source. Did the Police investigate that?
I think we have opened new lines of enquiry – don’t you think?
“The Danish imams and their antics aside, I don’t have any problems with a woman who (democratically) complained about cartoons that I also saw as racist caricatures. She is within her rights to do that as the campaigners did to stop the BBC broadcasting Jerry Springer”
Your argument is based on the British reality where censorship does exist, either by government (films, etc), or by pressure from religious groups.
Denmark has a proud tradition of non-censhorship. She had a lot of options to show her discontent, but she chose the censorship route. That is fine. She also chose to be rude by not shaking hands, but that is fine. She didn’t break any laws in Denmark.
However, why should any political party accept anyone who they feel does not represent the core values of their party, and indeed their country? And why shouldn’t people talk, debate and repudiate some of her views and actions? Is this intolerence, just because she is brown and muslim? This is after all part of democratic process. And she is free to form her own party, no?
As ZinZin pointed out no one is censoring her, unlike what she intended to do.
Sometimes the “intolerent” majority gets it right. Denmark is a socialist, secular and tolerant society where there is real freedom of speech. I hope that Denmark continues to be intolerant with anyone who goes against their core values, and hope that Britain would show some backbone to do the same.
Sunny, I think you got a few things wrong. It’s not the political establisment who are against Asmma’s veil.
At most it’s genuine political discussion about values. And a lot of danish people left right alike, don’t really like Asmaa’s conservative values. Most danes like girls and boys to play together, enjoy when girls are playing handball.Asmaa don’t.
But the woman in question doesn’t sem to mind, you don’t quote her most valuabe point : Ms Abdol-Hamid is unfazed. “I see more Islam here in Denmark than in Iran or in other places in the Middle East”.
And with Allahs blessing it seems like the danish welfare state will have a long life.
Neils: Ms Abdol-Hamid is unfazed. “I see more Islam here in Denmark than in Iran or in other places in the Middle Eastâ€.
Its unlikely she is referring to the welfare state since the Arab countries are broadly crap on that. She is more likely to be referring to the freedom that people get to practice their religion, and people’s compassion for each other. That comment cannot be taken in a negative way.
Ravi: Denmark has a proud tradition of non-censhorship. She had a lot of options to show her discontent, but she chose the censorship route.
I think that is slightly disingenuous. American also had a strong tradition of free speech and has that enshrined into the constitution. That doesn’t stop the big lobby groups, especially the Parent and Christian groups on the right, to demand censorship.
Her politics are a bit more muddled than you are making out to be. She is socially liberal, going from the article, on certain issues (gay rights, abortion etc) but is a bit more conservative on her personal conduct. I can’t imagine her on the right where the parties would be anti-immigration and anti-abortion.
Ravi, you do the Danish people a great disservice:
“Denmark has a proud tradition of non-censhorship. She had a lot of options to show her discontent, but she chose the censorship route.”
Denmark does not a have a tradition of being gratuitously offensive or racist.
Neils,
You are being ridiculous.
“Ms Abdol-Hamid is unfazed. “I see more Islam here in Denmark than in Iran or in other places in the Middle Eastâ€.”
This is a criticism of the countries which claim to be muslim, but do not deliver the core of what the faith requires.
Take it for the compliment that it is. If not you, certainly Denmark as a country should.
Sorry Sunny but in an interview with the danish left liberal newspaper 20-4-2007, she mentions that ‘Velfærdssamfundet og den økonomiske omfordeling er grundlæggende islamisk’ in english ‘the welfare state and the economic redistribution is basically islamic’.
Well you can agree or disagree (!)
I think that Asmaa is a young women who are trying to make sense of the world. And there is no doubt, that she really would like to integrate islam and the danish society.
‘the welfare state and the economic redistribution is basically islamic’.
But she’s thenequating the economic ideals of socialism with the economic ideals of Islam, right?
“Ravi, you do the Danish people a great disservice:
Denmark does not a have a tradition of being gratuitously offensive or racist.”
Oh please, Refresh. I respect that you see these cartoons as racist or offensive, but I certainly don’t. They can be interpreted in many ways, including the fact that Islam is becoming more militant and violent. The cartoon that the imans maliciously added, on the other hand, is hateful in my view. Maybe the cartoons that were actually published in Denmark were not offensive enough for them.
By the way, I note that you often accuse others of being ridiculous or irrational. We spend our time contributing to this discussion in good faith and with respect, and hence your quick dismissals are quite rude in my view.
This thread should die, be put out its misery.
This girl is a mixure of contradictions. The Dutch do seem to be swinging to the right.
That’s it, let it rest now.
TFI
=>”By the way, I note that you often accuse others of being ridiculous or irrational. We spend our time contributing to this discussion in good faith and with respect, and hence your quick dismissals are quite rude in my view.”
You frequently behave in exactly the same way, Ravi my friend.
Perhaps you should reflect on your own tendency to dismiss the views of others — often extremely condescendingly, and coupled with unwarranted assumptions about the other party’s viewpoint and motivations — before you accuse other commenters here of the same transgression.
Respect is a two-way street.
“Perhaps you should reflect on your own tendency to dismiss the views of others — often extremely condescendingly, and coupled with unwarranted assumptions about the other party’s viewpoint and motivations — before you accuse other commenters here of the same transgression”
I will take your word on my condescending ways, dear Jai. Though my complaint about Reflect’s posts is not respect, but rather the way he quickly dismisses people’s arguments by applying a couple of adjectives, and not ellaborating further. I find that rude.
Sunny – ‘then equating the economic ideals of socialism with the economic ideals of Islam’
Guess yo could put it this way,I think it’s more the moral part of the welfare system, to give something to the poor, but I’ve to admit that I seldom – if at all, have heard her use the word socialism.But from her part it could be a tactically choice. A lot of the woters she is targetting surely don’t like the word socialism.
Although I don’t personally like her, she is clearly learning and adopting to the political game.
.
But I think Assmaa will have a rough time, just like other young strong believers(*).It’s a little bit fun to se that the turks have it easier with the political system, they have secularism in their bones.
She will be met with questions where she will have to mediate between her religous conservative background and her common sense and the protestantic secular basis of the danish belief system.
(*) There’s been quite a few rather bright paki girls with or without veil, who have broken their neck in this process.
You could blame on intolerance, but the strong secular basis of the danish civil society have not fallen from the sky. It has been reached through a long and hard political and cultural struggle and it’s based on a strong concensus ranging from the left to the right.That is the reason why abortion is a non issue in Denmark.
Neils
I beleive I was quite rude to you, since its quite customary to accept new posters with good will. Which I do now. Welcome.
Ravi,
“By the way, I note that you often accuse others of being ridiculous or irrational.”
How often is often? In over a year of contributing on this site, this is the only thread I’ve used the adjectives. Once.
So its not often.
With regards the use of ‘irrational’ in the case of ZinZin, I am more than happy to elaborate. But you have to have followed the whole thread for the context.
With regards “ridiculous” that explained itself within that post.
Is it rude for me to use a few adjectives without elaborating?
I don’t think so, but for once I feel compelled.
As for the cartoons – yes they were racist even before we get onto the additional two. Now if, as you advised, they were sent anonymously then they were someone’s work. My question on that point was, did the Danish Police investigate the source? And if they did not why not? Were they also within the remit of Danish laws on discrimination, and incitement?
I have already criticised the Imam in question for taking them up as a unpublished contribution from Jyllands Post – IF THAT IS WHAT HE DID.
Its equally possible that was not how it went.
I would not be too surprised if they were added to the ‘dossier’ to explain the climate that was developing in the country.
Now the substantive issue. The 12 cartoons were the work of a right wing newspaper who supported a right wing government in coalition with the far-right. Read into that what you will.
Neills,
Use of the word “paki” is seen as quite offensive.
Do you mean paki as in Pakistani, or is it a general term where you are? And where are you?
“broken their neck”, do you mean that literally?
Hope this isn’t off the thread but thought this was interesting from Tariq Modood. Haven’t heard from him for a while.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/multiculturalism_4627.jsp
Neils: She will be met with questions where she will have to mediate between her religous conservative background and her common sense and the protestantic secular basis of the danish belief system.
I don’t have a problem with secularism and I wouldn’t have it any other way. But I get the feeling she doesn’t have a problem with it either, after all she is not only proud to be Danish but wants to contribute towards political society.
My only point is that a system should not reject contributors just because they are outside the “norm”, that is no reason in itself. She should be treated like any other person going into politics… and I find the suggestion that somehow she is an ‘outsider’ who should conform to existing norms because she happens to be of Arab origin as somewhat racist. A political system should be open to anyone who wants to participate in it. The fact there is resistance in this case suggests that some would rather like she didn’t just because she doesn’t agree with everyone else.
Sunny,
Re post 293. Agreed. That is the point. What has now been set is a ‘high bar’ to her commitment to Danish democratic institutions. Which I, perhaps out of a romanticised belief that the Danes were different, see here,
http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/films/afmp/stories/denmark.php
thought had an open view of what humanity actually is. Better than most, I’d have said.
To Refresh (291) sorry for the use of the ‘P’ word it wasn’t meant like that. it was just a shortcut.
And to Sunny : I don’t think we disagree. Of course she should be allowed to participiate. And you have to remember that the people who opposeses Asmaa right to wear the veil in parliament is a small minority. But that said, the dislike of the veil and it’s conservative signals, is very deep in the danish society, f.eks. the leader of the socialdemocratic party is strongly opposed to it.
But the veil in it self is very uninteresting.The main problem is that some muslim girls are not allowed/or chose not to participiate in the ordinary social life among teenagers. This exiled existence can be a problem for them later on in life.But of course, thats where my intolerance comes in (!) but I prefer the ‘normal’ danish way of socialising girls ( I have two myself).
“I think that is slightly disingenuous. American also had a strong tradition of free speech and has that enshrined into the constitution. That doesn’t stop the big lobby groups, especially the Parent and Christian groups on the right, to demand censorship.”
Indeed. But which is the progressive side? America is having a cultural war between the religious right and the secular left. I just feel that muslim activists want to do in Europe what envangelical Christians are doing in the US: bringing religion to politics.
“and I find the suggestion that somehow she is an ‘outsider’ who should conform to existing norms because she happens to be of Arab origin as somewhat racist.”
I disagree. If she was targeted just because she was Arab or Muslim, that would be racism. However, it is her views and conduct that get criticism. She made her religous identity as part of her political persona. And that makes her an outsider in my view. And any secular political party has the right to shun her without bowing to political correctness, and being accused of racism.
Refresh
Throughout this thread I started by initially accepting that Miss Abdol-Hamid was a progressive although the issue of not shaking hands rankled. Many contributers to this thread questioned her progressive credentials and I was subsequently swayed by their arguments.
Refresh I have had a tough week and perhaps I should not have posted on this paricular thread. However I am reasonably happy with my contribution. Unfortunately I feel that you should not be proud of your contribution which has consisted of nothing but sarcasm and facetious remarks.
Only Ravi has understood the key issue regarding this particular issue.
Both Ravi and Niels have made positive contributions.
The last one by Ravi is especially pertinent. I have already alluded to the Danish Muslim politician Naser Khader, who from humble origins has by dint of his own efforts become a valued member of Danish society. He does not wear his religion on his sleeve and presents a positive role model to all recent immigrants, Muslim and otherwise. He has a commitment to social justice for all.
Similarly in France, the new Justice minister Rachida Dati, an Arab Muslim by origin, has risen from poverty through her own efforts. She is no place person, does not use her background to plead special attention, and again is a role model for all. Indeed it appears one of the major policies of the new government will be affirmative action for all the poor and disposed, irrespective of ethnic origin or religious belief.
It has to be realised that in secular democracies most people are not really interested in what your religious beliefs are as long as you keep them in the private domain. If you insist that they should form an integral part of your political identity, then I am afraid your political constituency will be very small.
what was so racist about the cartoons Refresh? Please can you explain that to me seriously?
yes im opening that can of worms again. Whilst some people felt they were offensive and possibly racist ( because it was people of another *race*?) that hardly means everyone is agreed on them being racist. It seemed to me to be a matter of religious propriety -some people felt upset because they felt they were not given the *respect* they felt their religion deserved – but what’s that got to do with race? it is hardly as if ‘white’ christian evangelists don’t get the mickey taken out of them.
in any case let me say this: why is it that as Muslims we are supposed to find visual representation so offensive? yet we can read any no. of Hadiths which frankly are unpleasant, and not have any issues? Personally i find the most insidious claims about the Prophet’s character come from many dodgy Hadiths. I’m not keen on Hadiths precisely because they ascribe not very prophetly activities to the Prophet. Now who can we blame for the stories in circulation about the Prophet? Did the Danes make them up? No they didn’t -they used the existing stories in the Muslim tradition – which clearly many Muslims are not happy with – however these are accepted as part of religious tradition. Yes they made a ‘satire’ about them and used visual representation – but the core claims about the Prophet’s character? I would argue the damage is done by centuries of hanging on to dodgy Hadiths. When I see more people getting upset about the tarnishing of the character of a God’s prophet by so-called religious tradition, then i’ll take this ‘oh we’re upset because someone insulted our Prophet’ more seriously. Otherwise it comes across as non-thinking ‘how dare you criticise MY religion you’re just an outsider’ type cliqueyness.
And if we want to partake of that kind of cliqueyness what does that say about ‘us’ then wanting to question ‘other’ people’s beliefs? if ‘outsiders’ cannot do that..
of course – a rational response to my question would involve admitting there are many controversial Hadiths – which many Muslims will not even admit to..so I daresay my line of questioning will not be well received.
Perhaps I can apply to some authorities to ban dodgy hadiths in the same way people applied to have the cartoons banned. why not? i cannot pretend that Hadiths telling me the Prophet married a nine year old child, and that the Prophet okayed men to ‘take’ women in battle as part of booty – do not offend me. Do they offend you Refresh? ( or any of the other muslims who may be reading this thread) Why do we not complain about these Hadiths?
Sonia,
You have just asked some very brave questions, for which I certainly now consider you to be a progressive muslim.
If I could genuinely see Asmaa asking those sort of questions, then I would not have challenged her progressive credentials in the first place.
I think that the taking of women as booty after a battle depends on a sura from the quran, actually, Sonia, which makes it more difficult to get rid of.
My own probelm with Ms Abdol-Hamid, apart from the fact that I distrust and dislike any politician that pushes forward their religious beliefs, is that I think that there is an inconsistency in the parts of standard islam that she accepts and the parts that she rejects, so she has either not thought out her opinions properly or she is not telling the truth in her claims.
yes roger the phrase translated into english is ‘what your right hands possess’ for some reason is taken to mean ‘the slaves you own!’
BUt in any case what i am talking about up there is specifically Hadiths about the Prophet – not where Muslims get funny ideas about justifying slavery from.
I’m talking about people being ok with the very existence of these Hadiths.
thanks derius – normally you get a kicking for suggesting the bad things said about the Prophet seem to emanate from the Hadith. most people either ignore the controversial hadiths i.e. pretend they don’t exist, pretend they don’t find it shocking that such stories about the Prophet- or maybe have not heard of them. what i found always worrying that not only were such stories in circulation but effectively amounted to religious dogma! *hai hai* i blushed for all the Mullahs when i first read a dodgy hadith at the age of 11.
but it is difficult to gauge what other people think about these hadiths.
no doubt i shall be accused of derailing this thread.
!
but actually Roger – to address your point – the fact that the Prophet took * concubines* from the *war booty* made sure that it was enshrined in islamic jurisprudence – after all – if the Prophet did it – how can anyone say it was a bad thing? without by implication – suggesting that the Prophet was a bad man! pHaram haram!! tsk tsk stop thinking along those lines..the Prophet was infallible! you see where this all goes – you get tied up in knots.
can’t attack the practice if it had ‘venerable’ Practitioners. so what does that leave us with? either the stories were false and made up by some bad people wanting to practice their dodgy dealings..or?
People might be interested to read this post which describes some of the problematic hadiths attributed to our Prophet and then people saying ah well we need to follow the sunnah of the Prophet.
Sonia
You are absolutely correct the things you don’t understand or dispute. That’s the nature of the faith. Verify for your self.
Having said that you’re clearly addressing the wrong audience. The answers are not going to be found on Pickled Politics.
There are numerous sites you could visit both by muslims and others more than happy to portray the faith in a poor light.
Have I got the answers? No. I don’t know enough.
Have you opened a can of worms? No.
Have you derailed the thread? Yes. Clearly you have.
Its all yours.
Sorry, correction:
“You are absolutely correct to get answers for the things you don’t understand or dispute. That’s the nature of the faith. Verify for yourself. Follow nothing blindly.”
Sonia, I read your link in post #308. Excellent piece.
yes achelois writes very well and pertinent to the ‘can of worms’ i was opening. you’re right refresh, i don’t imagine i’ll be getting ‘answers’ from Pickled Politics..
Sonia,
This thread has been derailed so often you’d think it was Railtrack! Have we ever had a thread that reached 310, oops, if I post this 311, before?
I think what you are talking about is the divine versus religious bureaucracy. This seems to me to be quite prevelant in all religions, where earthly pursuits or concerns are allowed to over-ride the messages of peace, brotherhood, sisterhood too, and a basic humanity.
The media, the institution if you like, suppresses the message. I do not think that the interpretations that others place on the message is at all germane. As an ex-Christian, I happen to think Jesus Christ was an OK guy, with a great point to make. What I cannot accept is the ‘stuff’ that surrounds it. OK, that is my problem, but the point is that hierarchies are built on obscuring simple messages, and the messages are lost in translation through a ‘priesthood’, for want of a better term.
What gives any mortal man – they tend to be men – the right to second guess a religious icon? How are they especially enabled? Unless you want to become an atheist like me, that is not a bent rail you want to travel on.
This thread has been derailed so often you’d think it was Railtrack!
hilarious – chortle, that’s funny.
“Unless you want to become an atheist like me, that is not a bent rail you want to travel on.”
ah well – quite. perhaps that’s where i’m heading. not only do i think refresh was right about there being no answers on PP i think perhaps there are no answers?
i think the reason the mullahs don’t like questions like mine are because often they lead to just that – becoming an atheist.
Sonia,
Hugs. No, seriously. Hugs.
It is your decision to make.
You can make your own mind up about stuff. You are a very intelligent woman, you can figure it out for yourself.
I’d only say that all religions are masculine.
“I’d only say that all religions are masculine”
What about the Church of England?
Men in dresses; a woman as the supreme governor; most of the clergy are attracted to men.
thanks douglas – *hugs back* !
men in dresses …;-) i suppose the mullah outfits are a bit girly too if you come to think about it – like a long frock..
Rumbold,
Whatever. You are obviously not liberal enough
Supreme governor indeed, what does that tell you about the masochist tendancy?
I have to apologise for taking myself very seriously this weekend …
Religion isn’t the only means that limit women’s freedom – there are so many isms that marginalise women, this is a useful link to the religions that do, though….More interesting question is why.
http://waf.gn.apc.org/
“I’d only say that all religions are masculine”
But generally though you could argue that all knowledge is masculine….
E/g the past is told to us as HIStory. Why not HERstory?
Halima,
The word ‘history’ comes from the Greek root historia meaning ‘narrative, history’, admittedly also from histor, meaning ‘learned, wise men’. The root of the word ‘his’ is Old English. In any event it would be hi story, or his tory, neither of which work too well!
In any event I do not believe it is that simple. If you care to look at emancipation of women in the Western world, it has been a struggle going on for nigh on 150 years. And it is a battle not yet won.
The drag factor in all of this debate has largely been about ‘ownership’, in the appalling Victorian sense that a husband owned his wife. And, frankly, the complicity of a lot of women in agreeing to that status. Sure, they went through a church ceremony that said that they were coming together in the sight of God, and all of that, but the legal situation was a lot more one sided. Given that the Church and the State were closer bedfellows back then than they are now, it is pretty plain to me that the Church was complicit in maintaining a status quo ante. Men on top!
You either believe in equality, beyond state or religious strictures, or you don’t. And, if you believe in equality and religion, it ought to be a duty of every woman that sees it that way to challenge the existing religious structural imbalance in favour of men.
“You either believe in equality, beyond state or religious strictures, or you don’t. And, if you believe in equality and religion, it ought to be a duty of every woman that sees it that way to challenge the existing religious structural imbalance in favour of men.”
Exactly.
And refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex doesn’t strike me as a great place to start!
douglas 320 – “And, frankly, the complicity of a lot of women in agreeing to that status.”
spot on!
Sonia – Don’t know quite what to say.
Yes I do – where are your pictures of your hols?
Justforfun
heh jff.. what those old things? you can find some on the flickr link on the sidebar of my diary page
Douglas
Exactly my point – neither definion of the roots of History work very well …
Thanks – I was being tongue and cheek but it is a serious point. Knowledge is power.
And yes, would totally agree the problem is one of ownership. Until recently a woman couldn’t accuse a man of rape if she were married to him – even if this was forced onto her. The legal story then was that a woman was a man’s property and therefore he isn’t violating her. That was UK law , by the way.
Perhaps deep down we know that women are the stronger sex and that’s why we want to keep em down. Was it Malcolm X who said educate a man you educate an individual, educate a woman you educate a nation.