Not to worry
The MCB is so dutiful and giving and conscientious, don’t you think? It assures us that, when it’s absolutely necessary, even a Muslim will in fact do her job.
A Muslim woman police officer refused to shake hands with the head of the Metropolitan Police on faith grounds…The woman’s refusal was based on her view that her faith prevented her touching a man other than her husband or a close relative…Sheikh Ibraham Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said people should not be alarmed by the officer’s beliefs and that Muslim law “was not set in concrete”. He added: “If the officer is called to a male victim who has been shot, the laws go out of the window. If she has to resuscitate that dying person, Muslim law will then change and allow her all sorts of physical contact because a life is at risk and life is so precious. Muslim law will say, ‘forget everything, save this life’.”
Ohhhhh – isn’t that generous? I’m so impressed. If a male victim is dying, then the law goes out the window. Coolerino. But so – if he’s not dying but just mangled, it doesn’t? Or if there’s uncertainty about whether he’s dying or not? Or if he’s quite all right really but trapped and in pain? Does she have to do her job only if the male victim will die if she doesn’t? Is there, like, a get-out clause for all cases short of death? Is that what everyone should be not alarmed about? Or should people instead be alarmed about the whole idea of other people taking up jobs that their religions forbid them to, you know, do?
It all reminds me of Mr Collins –
I have been so fortunate as to be distinguished by the patronage of the Right Honourable Lady Catherine de Bourgh, widow of Sir Lewis de Bourgh, whose bounty and beneficence has preferred me to the valuable rectory of this parish, where it shall be my earnest endeavour to demean myself with grateful respect towards her Ladyship, and be ever ready to perform those rites and ceremonies which are instituted by the Church of England.
And Lizzy’s reflection on him: ‘Elizabeth was chiefly struck with his extraordinary deference for Lady Catherine, and his kind intention of christening, marrying, and burying his parishioners whenever it were required.’
And let’s not forget how easy it also is nowadays for Muslim women to be lifeguards:
http://www.ahiida.com/index.php
This was the bit that made me blink:
“I don’t think shaking hands is something that makes or breaks a relationship.”
Except, it kinda is. It’s a social gesture that is explicitly used to convey greeting and acknowledgement, especially in ceremonies such as this one. And while refusing shouldn’t necessarily damage the putative relationship, it’s hardly a neutral act either.
I understand that the whole of the (“Channel 4” ? ) TV programme, Dispatches, on the muslim preachers is now available on YouTube ……
Start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo
I wonder what is supposed to happen if the dying party has been mortally injured by a Muslim for, say, drawing a picture of Mohammed? Is it still, “forget everything, save this life”? If it is, why wasn’t the life worth more than a silly scribble in the first place? If it isn’t, well, that’s a whole different set of questions, isn’t it?
Just what does the value of a life trump and what doesn’t it trump?
Sure it’s relatively trivial, and no-one wants to appear all hysterical Daily_mail, but I do wonder how she or someone similarly oriented might have to approach a situation in somewhere like Southall, acting as a Metropolitan Police officer, where Sharia Law is being applied, but UK Law is applicable… I can see the Met being getting their employment lawyers on the job already.
I would have thought that Southall would be the last place to have Shari’a law, since there are a lot of Sikhs there ……
Tower Hamlets then. You’re not calling me a liar are you ??
“Muslim law will then change and allow her all sorts of physical contact because a life is at risk and life is so precious. Muslim law will say, ‘forget everything, save this life’.”
Cheeky bastards. It is British Law (or EU Law I guess) which operates in Britain, not bloody muslim law. The BNP, the NF, and Jade Goody have never made me think ill of minorities. Yet day after day I hear these sort of outbursts from some muslims and to my shame, I can’t help but think “if you don’t like the rules/culture sod off to somewhere that is more to your liking.”
“I would have thought that Southall would be the last place to have Shari’a law, since there are a lot of Sikhs there ……”
I was there for the first time this weekend. (The herbs and spices are much cheaper than at Tesco), and did notice an Islamic bank there, but must confess I don’t the area’s ethnic composition. They do have cracking shops though.
Islamic law respects emergencies where the saving of life is the paramount consideration? Right! Those schoolgirls who were forced back into a raging inferno by the religious fuckwit police because they hadn’t their headscarves (in Mecca a few years ago) were all a figment of my imagination then. Carry on then, have a special niqabed tactical squad while you at it.
You’re Niqabed sunshine !
Oh yeah, those schoolgirls. I missed a trick, not thinking of them. Very good point.
I’ve got a link to the story in Flashback somewhere.
Very (un)funny Nick S.
I was suggesting another place, that’s all.
Actually some parts of Tower Hamlets, and New Ham, and even the very “bottom” (=South) end of my “own” borough (Waltham Forest) might easily qualify for a “law” that is neither legal nor moral, but enforced by the usual religious tactics ….
BTW, I think he’s stopped posting now, bu there used to be a blog called “The Religious Policeman” by a Saudi expatriate, who was so royally (oops- pun) pissed-off by the brainwash in his home country, compared to what he saw here …
It may still be available at:
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/
Which reminds me, the links from the main-page to the Grauniad’s “Comment-is-free” pages seem to have gone down – it appears to be at their end?
The link in Flashback that I mentioned is twelve down from the top –
Religious police prevented schoolgirls from escaping fire
Saudi Arabia’s religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress; fifteen died.
Australian Lifeguard Association have just intoduced a swimsuit suitable for Muslim women to act as lifeguards. I don’t know how easy it is to swim in this, let alone rescue someone, but I don’t think the obvious question has yet been asked: Are they allowed to save a male they don’t know?
How depressing that articles like this can still inspire people to say “if you don’t like the way we do things, piss off”.
But surely her choice of career is a little questionable? It’s admirable that she wants to join the police. Somehow, and this is just a guess, I suspect that Muslim women as a social group might be a tad under-represented in the Met.
But if it’s against her creed to touch men except in these rather vaguley defined special circumstances, perhaps something a little less involved might be in order.
Well, that raises the general question of belonging to different sets whose requirements don’t actually permit them to overlap (is it at all true to say that there is no inherent conflict in responsibility for equality in the Cabinet and membership in Opus Dei?).
there is almost nothing positive being said about muslims these days. every time one muslim does something we consider odd it is the whole religion and culture that are bashed. i wonder if this story would have gotten so much play if it were an orthodox jewish woman who had refused to shake hands. why are other religions beliefs and traditions respected while similar islamic ones are being sytematically ridiculed?
‘why are other religions beliefs and traditions respected …?’
Not around here, they aren’t.
“How depressing that articles like this can still inspire people to say “if you don’t like the way we do things, piss off”. “
It is a little more than that. It is “if you want us all to change and do things the way you want them done; piss off”. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Would you go to Saudi or Iran insisting on your right to drink or have sex with someone other than your spouse? (Good luck with it if you would). Surely that would be unsupportably imperial and arrogant of you, imposing your culture on another culture.
” i wonder if this story would have gotten so much play if it were an orthodox jewish woman who had refused to shake hands.”
Hahahahaha. Yes, because the media NEVER says anything against the Jews. Purlease!!
“why are other religions beliefs and traditions respected while similar islamic ones are being sytematically ridiculed? “
As Don said; not round here they are not. I’d say the same to anyone else. If american’s come here, they can damn well drive on the left side of the road. And FWIW, I think that cirumcision of infants should be illegal here. I’d also ban kosher and halal meat.
No one is going to cower me into staying quiet about things by spurious allegations or implications of racism.
I’ll as readily condemn catholics, sihks, hindus and any other religious group when they start interfering. So by all means imply racism, but I’ll ignore it, especially when it is by people that cannot distinguish a race (Jew) from a religion (Islam).
“every time one muslim does something we consider odd it is the whole religion and culture that are bashed. “
Well “odd” is a somewhat “odd” way to describe some of the actions this religion foists upon the rest of us. They can be as odd as they like, I don’t care about odd. You are being dishonest if you think the issue is “odd” customs.
Not to mention the fact that I don’t see where the whole religion and culture was bashed. Where was that, exactly?
“Not to mention the fact that I don’t see where the whole religion and culture was bashed. Where was that, exactly?”
Thanks OB. Although I guess that my comment:
“Yet day after day I hear these sort of outbursts from some muslims and to my shame, I can’t help but think “if you don’t like the rules/culture sod off to somewhere that is more to your liking.”
Could (and indeed was by Sharon) be deliberately misconstrued as racist. Still, I am not going to get to offended by veiled charges of racism from someone that thinks that homophobia and sexism is merely “odd”. This reminds me that guardian trainee jounalist who, in the context of the July 7th London bombings, described todays British muslims as “sassy”. Which manages to be both offensive to any decent person, and almost libelous of most UK muslims.
Well, for the sake of precision, it’s worth noting that Sharon didn’t actually mention racism. And I’m not going to get offended either, but I am going to ask for precision. Sharon’s comment doesn’t match up very well with anything that’s been said here. Even the comment about sodding off is explicitly in reference to some Muslims – one can tell that because of the presence of the word ‘some’ in the comment.
” it’s worth noting that Sharon didn’t actually mention racism.”
You are correct. I was reading between the lines, which in fairness is what Sharon may have been doing and either one of us may have been unfair to the other.
But the notion that Jews are not critised is laughable, certainly here in the UK anyway. And the conflation of race and culture in the post defintely needed stamping on. I stand by my disgust at sexism and homophobia being described as odd.
OB, you are making too much of this. The WPC may have asked to be excused from shaking Sir Ian’s hand out of a desire to make a stand for her Muslim identity, but let’s be charitable and assume that this is a genuine observance of a taboo. We have to weigh the insult to the WPC in obliging her to shake hands against the offence to Sir Ian in her refusing to do so. This is a genuine impasse. It illustrates in a small way the difficulties the indigenous and Muslim cultures in the UK have in finding a modus vivendi. In this case the Met decided to allow the request. What do we gain in trying to deduce from the MCB spokesman’s brief statement the precise circumstances in which the WPC would break the taboo? She has completed her training and the Met judges her fit to do the job. We (and the BBC) should leave it at that.
“but let’s be charitable and assume that this is a genuine observance of a taboo.”
I’m not assuming anything else, but I don’t think taboos are a good thing, especially not taboos that interfere with people doing the jobs they’ve trained to do, so why would assuming that cause me to make less of it?
As for identity, and making a stand for identity, and insult, and offense, and difficulties, and culture – I’m deeply offended and insulted in the core of my identity by this weird UK thing of talking about WPCs. It’s so stupid. You don’t have Wdoctors or Wteachers or Wplumbers or Wbarristers or Wzookeepers – why WPCs?
I’m not a Weditor, any more than I’m an editress. I’m just an editor.
Fully agree OB, but have you noticed? – we do have Mnurses.
_
I apologise OB. Trying to be pithy. Please substitute ‘officer’ or ‘female officer’ where appropriate. That she is female is not insignificant.
Whether taboos are a good thing or bad I can’t say, but we all have them and have to live with them. Again, I used ‘taboo’ throughout for pithiness, though there is a spectrum from taboo down to mere custom and habit. Quite what this particular social ‘thing’ this is I’m not anthropologist enough to tell but the Met have judged that this officer can do the job despite it.
I agree with Galileo. Far too much has been made of this. It’s not a professional requirement that the woman shakes hands with someone. (Physical contact with someone in eg arresting them or disarming them or stopping them jumping off a bridge is different.) If I was introduced to someone and they said, sorry, can’t shake hands, I would shrug my shoulders, just as if they said, sorry, I don’t eat bacon. It’s not important. A nod and a smile is an acceptable substitute – and I would say, especially for women, as the shaking hands thing was originally for men, I think, to show they weren’t holding a sword. Women curtsied.
In my own lifetime I’ve seen greetings change – people were not so huggy and kissy to friends in my youth as they are now. Once British (and Australian, and New Zealand) men would recoil from an embrace from another man, now it has become fairly common.
Spirit 21 has a good post on this.
http://www.spirit21.co.uk/2007/01/refusing-to-shake-hands-latest-crime.html
Hmm. Not all that important in itself, perhaps, but as part of an overall pattern or campaign of creeping de-secularization? In that sense I think it is somewhat important.
Actually it’s quite reminiscent of children (or dogs) trying it on – doing something forbidden while keeping one eye on the alpha to see if they’re going to get away with it. (Yes, dogs definitely do that.)