R0bert: Another option to add to the list is:

- The person follows a faith which asks them to refrain from physically touching an unrelated member of the opposite sex.

After all, it's also the practice of Orthodox Jews; traditional Indian cultures; Buddhist Thais among others.

Having said that, while I respect the right of another Australian to observe a religious and/or cultural practice such as refraining from shaking hands, personally for me as a Muslim it really isn't a big deal. Apparently even the head of al-Azhar (if you want a Sunni 'pope', he's it) shakes hands with Westerners who proffer them, female or not. My practice is to not offer my hand straight away. If someone offers it, I shake it, if not I don't. It's not that hard really!

BOAZ: Your response is about as knowledgeable as some bigoted 'Muslim' stereotype of all Westerners as alcoholic adulterers who spend every night drinking beer, watching porn and invading foreign countries. Get used to the fact that Muslims are here to stay and that Islamic culture is part of the diverse fabric that makes up Australian life.

Enaj: well to be honest, if your cultural allergen level is so sensitive that you simply cannot bear a different manner of greeting, then you're right - we probably wouldn't do business. Try giving your Japanenese collegue the benefit of the doubt - you can only be insulted if you choose to be. If you come across someone ignorant, then fine I would suggest you don't conduct business with them. But it may be simply a matter of walking a mile in another's shoes and extending past your comfort zone a little.

Philo: Hmm well if I flick onto Jerry Springer, I can get a fair sampling of what Western married life is like too... or not.

ummyasmin, thanks for the reply. I had not realised how much many groups have some adherants who follow prohibitions against touching.
Obviously no easy answers to some of these issues.

I did like enaj comments about using religion as a basis for treating others badly.

For the same reasons I agree with not discriminating against people on the basis of their faith I disagree with those who use their faith as a reason to discriminate against others. Refusing to shake hands with someone may not be discrimination but it is difficult to spot the difference sometimes.

R0bert

ummyasmin,
What cultural or religious values is Jerry Springer espousing? He is usually dealing with disfunftional uncultured people.
Quote, "Philo: Hmm well if I flick onto Jerry Springer, I can get a fair sampling of what Western married life is like too... or not."

Springer or his guests are not encouraging a cultural or religious practise unless it is by negative exposure; by shame. What Western book of social ettiquete or religious culture underpins the behaviour of his disfunctional guests.

Burka wearing Muslim women uphold the primitive desert beduown garb because it disguises their sex and makes them unnatractive to passing men. Today we live in a modern society where self denial ought to be practised and genuine care for others above our base gratification ought to guide our lives. Those obsessed with self gratification see our open culture as a feast for their perverted minds. Obviously such men are obsessed with their own gratification and cannot keep their unwanted hands of Western women.

Umyassin... with all due respect, I don't speak from ignornance.

Um.. Sura 33:49 [33:50]

<<O prophet, we made lawful for you
-your wives to whom you have paid their due dowry,
-or what you already have, as granted to you by GOD. (captive slaves)
-Also lawful for you in marriage are
-the daughters of your father's brothers,
-the daughters of your father's sisters,
-the daughters of your mother's brothers, the daughters of your mother's sisters, who have emigrated with you.

Also,

if a believing woman gave herself to the prophet - by forfeiting the dowry - the prophet may marry her without a dowry, if he so wishes. However, her forfeiting of the dowry applies ONLY TO THE PROPHET, and
NOT to the other believers. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses or what they already have. This is to spare you any embarrassment.
-GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. >>

Now, I've displayed a verse from his book, in regard to his position on women. How many, which types etc. (with some critical emphasis in caps)

So, I ask you this question, did you know this was his 'revelation' before you embraced Islam ? or.. where u 'born' a Muslim and simply accepted your cultural background ?

If you knew this about him prior to becoming a Muslim, would you have second thoughts ? Or.. if you did know it, are u 'fine' with this description of his 'exclusive' rights to women ? (while everyone else is limited)

It is often said, that Mohamed did the things he did as an 'example' e.g to 'show' that it is ok to marry your daughter in law after her husband divorces her... so, why is he not an 'example' in the numbers of women Muslims can have ?

To be honest, he would be the very last person I would consult on issues of modesty and sexual restraint.

R0bert: "Refusing to shake hands with someone may not be discrimination but it is difficult to spot the difference sometimes."

I agree. One famous Islamist (Qaradawi) advised that if a Muslim publically greeting a person (of the opposite sex) of a culture where handshaking is normative – and it would be impolite and embarrassing for the other person not to shake their hand – then a Muslim should shake hands. Later they can privately explain they would normally refrain for religious reasons.

So, cultural sensitivity *should* go both ways.

Philo: "He is usually dealing with disfunftional uncultured people."

My point precisely.

"Burka wearing Muslim women uphold the primitive desert beduown garb because it disguises their sex and makes them unnatractive to passing men."

Actually, the burqa was not the cultural dress of Bedouin Arabs but mostly worn by upper-class, noble Afghan women and women from the sub-continent (today Pakistan, parts of India and parts of Bangladesh). That it was a sign of class distinction can be gleaned from the fact that working, rural women in those agrarian societies did not wear it.

It’s interesting to note, however, that we’ve moved discussion from the simple headscarf, to one of the statistically rare forms of Muslim cultural dress.

BOAZ_David: No Muslim will argue that the Prophet and his wives were given special rights but also had to bear special restrictions. For example, his wives were more restricted in terms of movement and dress than other Muslim women, but were promised double the reward (punishment) in the afterlife. If they didn’t agree to those conditions, then they were not forced to remain his wives.

I converted most of the way through my undergraduate degree in Islamic studies, so I was more than familiar with the scripture, history, tenets and practices of Islam. I was particularly familiar with the context in which the Prophet Muhammad lived. That of a seventh century patriarchal, tribal society in which polygyny and slavery were endemic. After a twenty-five year marriage to Khadijah, except for A’isha, all his wives were divorcees or widows, many elderly. They were largely undertaken for legislative purposes, to strengthen kinship and tribal ties, and to protect widows of close companions. Hardly the stuff of Arabian nights harem fantasies, if that’s what you’re implying. Furthermore, they were all contracted before the Qur’anic revelation restricted polygynous marriages to four, and he did not contract any more marriages once that verse was revealed by God.

The Qur'an does not endorse patriarchy, polygyny or slavery - it merely notes their existence and provides legislation for where it does. It's underlying weltanschauung, however, is one of egalitarianism. That is the ideal goal of shari'a.