We pride ourselves on being a tolerant nation, but....

Granny23 Some Muslims distort the Hadiths to try and portray themselves as more Muslim than the mainstream and what is actually required of them. The head to toe covering and non touching are not requirements, modesty and humility are.
Christians also have those who purport to be more Christian than the mainstream and conduct themselves in somewhat extreme ways.
The issue in these instances is do we allow the minority to intimidate the majority With their ideologies and create dangerous divisions or nip these things in the bud. Unnecessary or called for virtue signalling in dress included.

It seems to me that people of all religions interpret their scriptures differently.

There are quite a few differences in the practices and beliefs of various "branches" of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Some Christians are against blood transfusions, some believe that the only way to follow Jesus's teachings is to be a pacifist, some think homosexuality is a mortal sin, some believe that certain passages in the Bible should be taken literally, while others see them as metaphorical, etc, etc, etc. Some Jews believe that women should cover their hair, should not worship in the same place as men, should not enter a synagogue whilst menstruating, should not be able to obtain a divorce without their husband's permission - others take a less prescriptive approach. Some Muslims believe that women should cover their hair, some think they should cover up completely, some think that neither is necessary, some think that dancing and music are against their religion, while others think differently, etc. etc.

I don't understand how not wanting to shake someone's hand (particularly when that someone is described as a "dignatory" and therefore is in a more powerful position than the woman in question) can be called "intimidating".

Eloethan Because the lady who refused to shake the hand did so not because she felt subordinated by the man, but because she was 'virtue signalling' showing that she was taking the modesty and humility requirement of her religion to the extreme. In some Arab States the shaking hands between sexes is considered by some as indiscreet however this is cultural rather than religious and is dying out within these regions as gender imbalances begin to level.

This is the difficulty. Greeting others in the middle east is a cheek kiss either side of the face - mem to men, women to women only. The reason for it not being men/women being obvious. But to apply this rule to shaking hands in a formal, very public situation is obviously over the top - and if foreward, they could wear gloves to avoid any skin contact. It is this clinging to the letter of the law regardless of context that both creates and is a sign of a fanatical attitude.
But have the British always respected the law of others when in their country?

Joelsnan but is 'Thou shalt NOT wear' just as divisive and repressive as thou SHALT wear? I have often wondered how the secular French deal with Nuns who are also in the habit of going about wearing long flowing black garments and extreme head coverings.

When I was growing up in the 50s no woman (even little girls or babies) would enter a church with out wearing a hat or at least a headscarf, while men removed their hats or caps. Later I was 'the talk of the steamie' for turning up bare headed to lay a wreath in a formal capacity on Remembrance Sunday (or maybe the shock horror was because I was wearing a white Poppy?).

Really, in the 21st Century have we not got more to worry about than what people wear and the traditions they wish to follow as long as they do no harm to others. I do draw the line at practices such as circumcision and FGM, even infants having their ears pierced. These permanent and dangerous practices should not be inflicted on children.

Granny23
Sadly these practices are being imposed on children, For those who do choose to cover their heads it was, until recently one females who had reached puberty that were required to cover. Now you see tiny young girls covered which to me is like putting young girls in overtly sexual clothing it is casting them as sexual beings which in both instances is so wrong.
Additionally these people intimidate the more 'liberal' of their faiths claiming that they are non believers, the weaker comply to show they are believers and so the ideology grows. Consider other times in history when similar has occurred.

Starbird
I have to say that the majority of western ex-pats who live/lived and worked in the Middle East do/did comply with the laws of the country's in which they lived, there were the exceptions of course, but very few, and mostly from ill informed tourists, which were regarded with some disdain by the resident ex-pats. Most actually enjoy the laws and children thrive in the more conservative environment. There were some quirky requirements but on the whole the majority adopt a 'when in Rome' attitude

Forewarned not forward

I'm mystified why someone would wish to live in a society whose ideals and values they cannot embrace. Surely, 'when in Rome...' ?

Joelsnan

" Additionally these people intimidate the more 'liberal' of their faiths claiming that they are non believers, the weaker comply to show they are believers and so the ideology grows. Consider other times in history when similar has occurred."

Good point.

*POGS
This has happened to a friend of my daughter. The friends mother never covered her hair or wore more 'modest clothing' so neither did her daughter. But now the woman has bowed to pressure from other friends and is a completely different person.

Blinko UK provides what is considered a generous welfare state not just for its own nationals as many states do, but for all who choose to reside here and it is very accommodating compared to most of the rest of the world. As you will note we have gone from non covered Muslims to a growing number of covered Muslims in a short period of time subtle intimidation and coercion is how the weak and ill informed are coopted into dangerous perversions of ideologies. Which can eventually overwhelm a passive state as history has shown.

I have always understood ( maybe wrongly) that the degree of covering up, no handshakes etc was a cultural thing and not religious at all.All Muslim women are expected to dress modestly ( in public!) but it depends which country they come from to go any further than that.Burkha in Afghanistan, hijab somewhere else etc, therefore anyone wishing to become a citizen of another country can leave all that behind them.In theory, anyway, but if their husbands and family are forcing them to dress extremely, it’s good that France is not allowing it.I wish other countries would follow France’s lead on this.

Firstly I don't approve of any restrictions if they are forced on a woman but if she chooses to interpret her faith as requiring these actions then I respect her right to do so
It is interesting that this should be regarded as a Muslim issue and used to promote what can only be described as an anti-Islamic agenda. Strongly Orthodox Jewish Rabbis will not shake hands with any woman they are introduced to, and never with non-Jewish women. I would imagine that their right to do this would not be questioned.

Trisher
If you read my posts, there is No anti Islamic agenda. FFS
Extreme interpretation of any ideology can be dangerous and should potentially be challenged to ensure the weak are protected and society remains safe and cohesive for all.
BTW if you examine all faiths non of them dictate exactly what anyone should wear all are cultural requirements (usually from paternalistic) societies) that have been 'imported' into religion just as circumcision and FGM have been co-opted in.

So how do you feel about Jewish rabbis Joelsnan ? If the state officer in question had .been female and this had been a Jewish rabbi seeking citizenship would he have been refused a passport?

Personally I think anyone has an absolute right to refuse to shake hands with anyone for any reason whatsoever and it is a restriction on personal freedoms to even askwhy they are doing it.

As you will note we have gone from non covered Muslims to a growing number of covered Muslims in a short period of time subtle intimidation and coercion is how the weak and ill informed are coopted into dangerous perversions of ideologies

Yes, well said. No one can have failed to notice.
The crux of the matter is that orthodox fanatics are driving the change we are seeing.

It's easier to slowly adjust to the culture of a country than it is to fight it. I feel for Muslim women who have been recently told they have to cover up from head to toe. Like others I have seen westernised educated women (co-workers) all of a sudden adopt traditional dress. Why is this happening? Why on earth have these bright women not resisted this sexist ideology? It caused much worry and discussion in the workplace.

It is not the way of the west to look at the world and to engage with others through a slit in a hood. I find it's offensive and wish women would wake up and decry the practice, especially as their menfolk are not forced to submit to a dress code. If we tolerate this, what next? Should it become the norm?

I think Joelsgran makes a very valid and worrying point and I think France is beginning to lead the way in pointing out that to live in harmony we ALL have to adjust.

^I think anyone has an absolute right to refuse to shake hands with anyone for any reason whatsoever6

So, the handshake, a western tradition of greeting, warmth, friendship and congratulation has now become insulting to some and we have to appreciate it? This is loony left ideology.

Refusing a handshake could be seen as insulting?

How about we teach newcomers that just as saying 'please' and 'thank you' is important in conversation, so is the handshake if it is offered? Religious norms should NOT deplete a culture, nor should the home nation have to adapt its culture to accommodate others. That is quite an insulting proposition.

I find it ridiculous that we should have to worry about who we offer our hand to in greeting. This will soon become part of the school curriculum no doubt.

Once again, give and take and making adjustments for cultural norms is so important, as most people manage to do when they travel the world. Why should a whole continent tolerate an Eastern ideology and adjust it's own so as not to offend?

Can you not see that such a situation does absolutely nothing for social cohesion and tolerance? It creates divides.

Jewish women traditionally cover their hair, wearing wigs. Is that more acceptable?
If women wish to cover and it is their decision shouldn't we accept this? I may not agree with them. I may not like the way that the sexes are segregated and I may feel this is predominantly to the benefit of men. But we should not imagine that it is only the followers of Islam who have such rules and restrictions. The probem with not accepting the differences is where does it stop? Complete covering is banned? Head scarves are banned? Head covering is banned?
And the hand shake may now be a form accepted by Western society, but what as time moves on? There is now a culture of greeting someone with hugs, personally I don't like it. I hug people I am close to, not everyone. If it became an accepted form of greeting I still wouldn't do it. It is my personal choice.

Day 6 you have criticised my post but failed to comment on the Jewish Rabbi who does refuse to shake hands. Always has, probably always will.

I do not like the implication that Muslim women are all weak, ignorant, and browbeaten. There are, sadly, many white British women who are under the control of their husbands, 'not allowed' to do this that or the other. That is why we have refuges and WA services.

On the other hand you only have to watch TV to see many muslim women who are prominent in public life and the media, juggling family and professional lives as all working mums do.

I had a sudden flashback to our wedding 50+ years ago. It was the standard Church wedding with a meal, speeches and dance band in a hotel to follow. However, all of DH's Uncles/Aunts/cousins belonged to a weird Mission Church and would not dance, nor drink alcohol. So the MCs attempts to organise toasts and the first dances, traditionally Bride and Groom, then Bride's Father with Groom's Mother etc. fell totally flat and I was left like a wallflower at my own wedding, until someone from my side came to my rescue. Total clash of cultures with all present White, Christian, Scots.

The question that trisher posed has not been responded to. If a rabbi declines to shake the hand of a woman, would that also be seen as acceptable grounds for denying citizenship?

I am not sure I'd be offended if people don't dance or drink at a wedding. It's hardly the same thing. I know lots of abstainers from all walks of life and different religions.

I have attended many graduation ceremonies. The new graduates shake hands on receiving their degrees. Not once have I seen a hand refused and these students come from all over the world.

"I do not like the implication that Muslim women are all weak, ignorant, and browbeaten."

The Muslim women I knew who took to the veil were not ignorant. I did not say they were. They were intelligent women, persuaded this was what their religion required them to do.

Why the orthodoxy all of a sudden (which offended colleagues and clients (who remarked on it) when to all intents and purposes they'd already adopted a much more liberal, western lifestyle?