Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'
From the Telegraph.
Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.
Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam.
Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".
The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.
Minutes of a clinical academics' meeting at Liverpool University revealed that female Muslim students at Alder Hey children's hospital had objected to rolling up their sleeves to wear gowns.
Similar concerns have been raised at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing".
Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed.
Documents from Birmingham University reveal that some students would prefer to quit the course rather than expose their arms, and warn that it could leave trusts open to legal action.
Hygiene experts said last night that no exceptions should be made on religious grounds.
I hope to hell the hospitals don't cave in to this foolishness. Muslim doctors... make that any doctors.... risking the lives of patients, in the name of religion or vanity, is absolutely unacceptable.
They should have to tell their patients they wont be scrubbing up properly before surgery in the interest of full disclosure. If the patient is happy to take the risk, then so be it (as long as they can afford the risk financially).
Surely it would have to go against their hypocratic oath though. Knowing they're likely to be putting their patients in danger...or something.
It also puts at risk, the hospital staff that have to treat this now infected patient.
I don't think that it is as much a check on extreme modesty as much as a fear of reaction among the ultra macho men in Muslim society, who may enforce their own brand of sharia if they find out the women would be doctors do scrub. Police so far has been inadequate in handling this regard. Yes, I'm saying that the men may kill them.
Your suggesting that Muslim women don't take the tenets seriously and only comply because men force them?
Fire them like you would any other non-compliant employee.
This threat of MRSA is real, once you allow the bacteria to enter your bloodstream, only God will have to save your life. Patients as well as the doctors are at risk of contracting this infection unlike HIV & Hepatitis. One study found 60% of doctors had their hands colonized with enterococci after handling a patient with enterococci infection.
This refusal to wash and scrub their hands will leave the doctors or medical students at risk of carrying MRSA home and spreading this micro-organism to their own family and children.
As patients, please refuse to be touched or treated by any doctor , nurse or medical student who refuse to wash their hands adequately (below elbow using soap and water for 15-30 seconds). You may be hated for being harsh, but this could save your life.
Only worry, I have is when people start treating all Asians to be Muslims, when there are Indians who are not Muslims, Afrocarabians who could be Muslims and Egyptians who look like Caucasians are Muslims.
Nature has its way of cleansing the society, this is one of the ways and I am sure there are a few more to come.
Please visit safecannulaI doubt that the hospitals will make exceptions on these grounds. It would be unreasonable to do so.
This threat of MRSA is real, once you allow the bacteria to enter your bloodstream, only God will have to save your life.
No hope for us atheists then.....
Please visit safecannula
your first post? A link without description? I'll pass, thanks.
- - - - - -
I already thought it was mandatory to be bare-armed and scrub up to the elbow. No way should this be allowed. There is clear evidence -and has been for a long time- that this is essential for hygeine.
Would Muslim women wearing long sleeves be allowed to work as doctors in countries where the law requires them to be covered?
Are we going to go back to the days where females were diagnosed and examined with their clothes on and doctors didn't wash their hands? Absolutely ridiculous.
Deadbeater may have a point; though if your male relatives are so fundamentalist as to kill you for showing your forearms when it is an absolute medical necessity, and if these women are so all-fired modest--why are they doctors? Or nurses, or whatever. Doesn't seem like a good career choice to me.
Can't these women do their surgical scrub in a private area? I mean, is it permissible for them to see their own elbows?
they need to keep their sleeves off their forearms post-scrub and during all patient contact, though, splode. The sleeves carry the bacteria. Unless they could maybe wear elbow length disposable surgical gloves?
your first post? A link without description? I'll pass, thanks.
Usually links are not permitted in the first post, but after checking it out decided it was pertinent and allowed it to stay.
OK thanks, I might even click on it, then....
but the link doesn't work
hmm. not for me. I've tried it several times, and I get the blue website not found screen
It's about a normally harmless bacteria that lives on your skin. Can get into patients' bodies during invasive surgery and attacks the immune system.
I can only go by the doctrines in most religions that put health and safety above dogma.
Most religions allow medical personnel to work on the Sabbath to save lives and ease suffering.
Most religions allow adherents to disregard dietary laws or forgo fasts if such actions risk lives.
I can't believe that the core Islamic faith would have an issue with this. Orthodox Jewish women have similar restrictions and I have never heard of this as an issue.
The stipulations of faith aren't that doctors can't show their arms though rich, rather the stipulation is that women can't show their arms. Times change and now women are doctors...puts a little strain on some of those tenets.
I can't imagine how a woman from a Muslim family can have been allowed to study medicine if the family is that fundamental. Srsly, can you?
This is a case where a caliph may help, rather than a Wahabbist imam, so as to guide Muslims on the right direction. In a weird way, Osama bin Laden may be right.
...some students would prefer to quit the course rather than expose their arms...
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, religious fucktards.
...and warn that it could leave trusts open to legal action...
Here's another warning: when we ship you back home, they might chop your cunt off.
wait, doesn't surgical garb cover your arms to the wrist and surgical gloves (2 pr IIRC) cover the hands totally?
I know Muslim women can undress and bathe privately and with members of their own sex, just not around men.
Doctors usually scrub privately and dress before surgery and the patient generally doesn't see the doctor just prior to surgery due to anesthetic prep. I've been operated on twice and neither time did I actually see the doctor, I was out before he even got there.
So what's the problem? I'm missing something I guess.
wait, doesn't surgical garb cover your arms to the wrist and surgical gloves (2 pr IIRC) cover the hands totally?
It sounds like the old uniforms did, but it's been determined that the sleeves are worsening the spread of the diseases. Emphasis mine:
Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".
Here's another warning: when we ship you back home, they might chop your cunt off.
Ship them back home? Who said they weren't British born moslems?
Ship them back home? Who said they weren't British born moslems?
Sorry, I should have said "ship you back where you belong" ...
It sounds like the old uniforms did, but it's been determined that the sleeves are worsening the spread of the diseases. Emphasis mine:
So why don't they provide long surgical gloves? It seems that it would be even more hygienic to cover the bare skin with gloves.
So why don't they provide long surgical gloves? It seems that it would be even more hygienic to cover the bare skin with gloves.
Then they'd have to go sleeveless. From my interpretation, flawed as it may be, it's keeping the clothing from contaminating the glove that is considerably important.
They should have to tell their patients they wont be scrubbing up properly before surgery in the interest of full disclosure. If the patient is happy to take the risk, then so be it (as long as they can afford the risk financially).
Surely it would have to go against their hypocratic oath though. Knowing they're likely to be putting their patients in danger...or something.
I completely agree. Well, I hope never to get sick there. :greenface
wait, doesn't surgical garb cover your arms to the wrist and surgical gloves (2 pr IIRC) cover the hands totally?
I know Muslim women can undress and bathe privately and with members of their own sex, just not around men.
Doctors usually scrub privately and dress before surgery and the patient generally doesn't see the doctor just prior to surgery due to anesthetic prep. I've been operated on twice and neither time did I actually see the doctor, I was out before he even got there.
So what's the problem? I'm missing something I guess.
Scrub areas are not in a private location. They are located as close as possible to the operative theater, usually with glass over the sink looking into the OR. This is so immediately after the scrub, the doc walks immediately into the OR with dripping arms held above the waist hands in the air at about shoulder or chest height. The glass is often there so the surgeon can monitor and be summonded if there is an immediate problem. Not all ORs have the glass, just most of the modern ones. The patient often does not see the surgeon in the OR, but that is surgeon dependent.
And FTR, the women must comply or find another profession IMHO. The Brits were pioneers in getting physicians to stop wearing ties in the hospital.
I personally think Islam was a flawed religion from the very beginning. Too many unworkable ideas, for example, their holy book can only be read in one language. The fact that it couldn't even survive their prophet's death without controversy, schism and bloodshed should have been a clue. The world is still paying for that schism today, and how.
The fact that it couldn't even survive their prophet's death without controversy, schism and bloodshed should have been a clue.
Unlike, say, the
Great Schism or the Protestant Reformation?
yeah, but those splits happened a thousand years after the fact. Islam broke up immediately upon its proponent's death.
I personally think Islam was a flawed religion from the very beginning. Too many unworkable ideas, for example, their holy book can only be read in one language. The fact that it couldn't even survive their prophet's death without controversy, schism and bloodshed should have been a clue. The world is still paying for that schism today, and how.
I personally think
Christianity was a flawed religion from the very beginning. Too many unworkable ideas, for example, *their holy book can only be read in one language. The fact that it couldn't even survive their
saviour's death without controversy, schism and bloodshed should have been a clue. The world is still paying for that schism today, and how.
*ok so the bible is available in many languages, but you get my idea I'm sure.I am not a fan of organized religion in general. I don't necessarily think your comparisons equate exactly as you have positioned them, but I won't insist on my idea. It was just a thought I had yesterday, listening to my podcast about cultural geography.
I'm not a fan of atheism either, especially when it propagates things such as human eugenics and worse.
atheists aren't the only ones to propogate human eugenics. Plenty of theists have been ardent eugenicists.
I don't necessarily think your comparisons equate exactly as you have positioned them
I know they don't. But I don't think we can make sweeping statements about any religion and really be positioning the religion correctly...if you get what I mean. It's the old bad apple thing. Just because some people that belong to a particular group go psycho doesn't mean the rest should be judged for those actions.
It was just a thought I had yesterday, listening to my podcast about cultural geography.
. . . in which the point was made that the Qur'an is only the Qur'an in one language, Arabic. Sure, you can translate it, but it isn't the Qur'an then--it isn't a holy book in English or whatever. I was thinking, boy that's pretty shortsighted of them, and then I got to thinking about other things in Islam that seem not to make sense to me, and are unworkable. Like the present discussion about female health care workers.
Yes, you can find plenty of examples of dumb things in a lot of religions, including Christianity--I'm not saying you can't--but it's just my personal opinion that Islam has had a tough roe and inflexible rules from the start.
I don't think it's necessarily Islam that's inflexible. There are places and communities practising Islam in very different ways across the globe. Some communities have a much more secular approach to Islam, some are culturally more inclined towards greater parity between the sexes than others. The inflexibility comes in with the interpretation of Islam. Certain interpretations of Islam render it (to the western way of thinking) inflexible and less able to fit a 'modern' way of life.
There are interpretations of Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism which, to my mind, seem inflexible and archaic in their precepts, including in their attitudes to females and homosexuality, dietary requirements, clothing requirements and so forth.
Oh, shame on our "western way of thinking" for pointing out obvious stupidity and barbarism when it rears it's ugly head.
I think it was more the idea that Islam is somehow inherently and uniquely stupid and barbarous that I was objecting to Flint. Much of what appears to be 'Islam' is actually a culturally based interpretation of Islam and in no way universally accepted by the Islamic diaspora. Doesn't make it any less stupid and barbarous....just makes it less inherent to the actual religion.
"stupid and barbarous" are rather harsher criticisms than I felt I was making. Flawed and unworkable were the things I was thinking about.
If I were in a hospital where this thing was going on . . . I would demand that no one touch me who hasn't properly scrubbed.
I think it was more the idea that Islam is somehow inherently and uniquely stupid and barbarous that I was objecting to Flint. Much of what appears to be 'Islam' is actually a culturally based interpretation of Islam and in no way universally accepted by the Islamic diaspora. Doesn't make it any less stupid and barbarous....just makes it less inherent to the actual religion.
The "Islamic diaspora" is but a tiny minority of all people of the Islamic faith. It seems to me that many of the more radical elements apear to come from the educated middle or upper middle class of Islamic society.
Although we have no defense against the MRSA infection, we do have a defense against this "diaspora" infection. No compliance to hygiene laws, no acceptance in med school or medical profession.
Is this just an isolated incident?
Also, this would be a good time to bring up Christian hospitals that refuse to hand out morning after pills to rape victims, I saw something on that a while back.
The "Islamic diaspora" is but a tiny minority of all people of the Islamic faith. It seems to me that many of the more radical elements apear to come from the educated middle or upper middle class of Islamic society.
Of course, a very easy way of getting and keeping power.
"Also, this would be a good time to bring up Christian hospitals that refuse to hand out morning after pills to rape victims, I saw something on that a while back."
Funny, I didn't know being pregnant could infect a whole hospital.
It's true! The last time I was in the hospital, every single patient in my ward was pregnant too!
"Also, this would be a good time to bring up Christian hospitals that refuse to hand out morning after pills to rape victims, I saw something on that a while back."
Funny, I didn't know being pregnant could infect a whole hospital.
Dirty surgery isn't likely to infect the whole hospital either, as the microbes in question are by definition all over the hospital already. But it can certainly impact the individual patient.
And how many individual patients does one doctor with germ-ridden sleeves see in a day?
I might point out that we are talking about objections raised by a small number of medical students in four or five universities. This is highly unlikely to be anything but a minor issue, and extremely unlikey to feed through into actual practice.
I might point out that we are talking about objections raised by a small number of medical students in four or five universities. This is highly unlikely to be anything but a minor issue, and extremely unlikey to feed through into actual practice.
And we're discussing the reasons why it
shouldn't.
The real problem, in my mind, is that
anybody would think this is acceptable behavior. When the total absence of reason that is rooted in religious ignorance begins to dictate people's actions, and they actually think that other people should give a fuck, then you
really do have a problem in society*. The fact that this is taking place "in four or five universities" demonstrates that it
isn't just an isolated problem. It's popping up all over the place, and it needs to be FORCEFULLY SQUASHED.
*and the same applies to religious morons in America: tyring to stop AIDS with abstinence, for instance
snip--
*and the same applies to religious morons in America: tyring to stop AIDS with abstinence, for instance
For instance....
Are you saying that abstinence is an ineffective way of stopping the spread of AIDS?
Are you saying that abstinence is an ineffective way of stopping the spread of AIDS?
Telling people "just don't have sex!" is an ineffective way of accomplishing anything whatsoever.
Does that include abstaining from cyber sex? :confused:
Abstinence is an almost certain way of preventing the spread of the AIDS virus, and you know it.
Being abstinent is, apparently, supremely difficult. But it does substantially reduce the transmission of the virus. Naturally, sharing virus laden bodily fluids in other ways does still represent a transmission vector, like needle sharing for example.
Don't be as deliberately ignorant and hysterical as those other morons, religious or otherwise, in spreading misinformation. You're too sharp for that.
Don't be obtuse. Simply telling people not to have sex accomplishes nothing, in reality. It's a theoretical solution with no practical application.
I respectfully disagree, Flint.
All solutions involve telling people stuff. And it (abstinence) is more than a theoretical solution, it is a real, partial, solution. Just as talking to people is part of the solution. There isn't one transmission vector, and there isn't one "magic bullet" solution. All progress in the area of reducing the spread of AIDS has involved simply telling people, as a start.
We agree that being abstinent is difficult. But a conversation where abstinence is part of the discussion can easily be done. Such a conversation can easily lead to more understanding where similarly effective methods (condom use) that are much more likely to be implemented can be introduced. You don't even have to start the conversation with "Be Abstinent!" But ignoring it is being willfully blind.
What you are talking about is a common-sense approach that covers all the basics. That's not what you get when you approach the subject from a religion-crazed mindset. The same mindset that tells you "I am not going to wash my hands before I do sugery because God doesn't want me to."
Preaching abstinence to the exclusion of condom education is one example of stupid religion-based ideas that come from this hemisphere, from white people! To demonstrate that it's not just those "crazy Muslims" injecting their religious attrocities on our society. We do it to ourselves, too.
And how many individual patients does one doctor with germ-ridden sleeves see in a day?
A few, if by "see" you mean "perform surgery on". Connecting that to an increased chance of infection, even the most generous interpretation doesn't come close to "infect a whole hospital".
We agree that being abstinent is difficult. But a conversation where abstinence is part of the discussion can easily be done. Such a conversation can easily lead to more understanding where similarly effective methods (condom use) that are much more likely to be implemented can be introduced. You don't even have to start the conversation with "Be Abstinent!" But ignoring it is being willfully blind.
Flint used some imprecise shorthand in his initial mention, but the common dichotomy when it comes to sex education is "abstinence
only" vs comprehensive, including abstinence. Abstinence only education is what the religious folks Flint was referring to are pushing, and while the effectiveness of the abstinence message are one thing, the effectiveness on disease avoidance among the inevitable kids who do have sex is worthless.
Flint called their "shorthand" nonsense. Then he repeated it. I called him on the repetition. The only defense against ignorance of this type is education. Repeating the nonsense gives it more momentum, and Flint was doing precisely what he was complaining about. Flint, for all his flaws, is no ignorant hypocrite, and I urged him to avoid talking like one.
As for abstinence's worthless effectiveness among kids who do have sex... that makes it *exactly as effective as* any other proven remedy that is not employed. It's not the "fault" of abstinence that makes it worthless in the situation you describe. It is the fault of the people not using the remedy.
Inciting envy in us mortals by your godly perfection.
That, and you're a drummer.
Now, let’s rewind…
:::reedle-deedle-eedle-eedle-oop!:::
As a footnote to the point: the constraints that religion can put on the scope of a person’s thought process, leading to ridiculous behavior such as Islamic surgeons not wanting to wash their hands properly, for exclusively religious reasons; I want to point out that Islam does not hold exclusive rights to religiously-inspired stupid behavior. For example, right here in America, we have people preaching “abstinence-only” plans as a comprehensive response to the AIDS pandemic. Which is equally stupid, and refutes the idea that one religion leads to more stupid behavior than another.
Now, how many times do I have to mention religion before Bruce shows up and gives me the business?
For christs sake V, it's pretty clear what Flint was saying. What's your problem?
What's your problem?
Maybe he has AIDS. Funny story: Sarah Silverman, on her show, is filling out the paperwork at the place where they test you for AIDS.
Nurse: Under sexual partners...you put two numbers?
Sarah: Oh, that one is for "the front"
Nurse: :::speechless::: But, they're the same number...
Sarah: Yeah, I'm kinda "OCD" like that.
Now you're just being a shit stirrer again Flint.
What, I can't tell funny stories?
For instance....
Are you saying that abstinence is an ineffective way of stopping the spread of AIDS?
Abstinence is an almost certain way of preventing the spread of the AIDS virus, and you know it.
Being abstinent is, apparently, supremely difficult. But it does substantially reduce the transmission of the virus. Naturally, sharing virus laden bodily fluids in other ways does still represent a transmission vector, like needle sharing for example.
Don't be as deliberately ignorant and hysterical as those other morons, religious or otherwise, in spreading misinformation. You're too sharp for that.
I respectfully disagree, Flint.
All solutions involve telling people stuff. And it (abstinence) is more than a theoretical solution, it is a real, partial, solution. Just as talking to people is part of the solution. There isn't one transmission vector, and there isn't one "magic bullet" solution. All progress in the area of reducing the spread of AIDS has involved simply telling people, as a start.
We agree that being abstinent is difficult. But a conversation where abstinence is part of the discussion can easily be done. Such a conversation can easily lead to more understanding where similarly effective methods (condom use) that are much more likely to be implemented can be introduced. You don't even have to start the conversation with "Be Abstinent!" But ignoring it is being willfully blind.
Flint called their "shorthand" nonsense. Then he repeated it. I called him on the repetition. The only defense against ignorance of this type is education. Repeating the nonsense gives it more momentum, and Flint was doing precisely what he was complaining about. Flint, for all his flaws, is no ignorant hypocrite, and I urged him to avoid talking like one.
As for abstinence's worthless effectiveness among kids who do have sex... that makes it *exactly as effective as* any other proven remedy that is not employed. It's not the "fault" of abstinence that makes it worthless in the situation you describe. It is the fault of the people not using the remedy.
For christs sake V, it's pretty clear what Flint was saying. What's your problem?
For Christ's sake, I explained my "problem" in four different posts? Can't you read?
Yes I can read thankyou very much. You should know that by now without asking.
As I said, it's pretty clear what Flints point was. Why are you choosing to be so 'obtuse'?
you forgot to bold obtuse
I am trying to understand if you think that abstinence should be taught as the only way to avoid AIDS or not.
I am trying to understand if you see any value at all in a holistic approach to education about STD's in general, or if you prefer to simply take the moral high ground and shut your eyes and ears.
As for abstinence's worthless effectiveness among kids who do have sex... that makes it *exactly as effective as* any other proven remedy that is not employed. It's not the "fault" of abstinence that makes it worthless in the situation you describe. It is the fault of the people not using the remedy.
It's not the fault of abstinence, it's the fault of education that only covers one base. Giving advice that you know many won't take is fine if all you care about is making sure they know it's their fault when they don't, but I wouldn't consider it to be particularly good education except in the figurative "school of hard knocks" way, by which time it's too late.
I am trying to understand if you think that abstinence should be taught as the only way to avoid AIDS or not.
Ah, a straight question. No, I do not think that abstinence should be taught as the only way to avoid AIDS. Here it's commonly called "abstinence only", and I think its value as a strategy for reducing the spread of AIDS is approximately zero. It may get better traction in monasteries, but I speculate only.
I am trying to understand if you see any value at all in a holistic approach to education about STD's in general, or if you prefer to simply take the moral high ground and shut your eyes and ears.
Two questions here, one straight, one bait. As I mentioned in my previous posts, which even Flint picked up on, I think abstinence has its place as a part of a larger conversation about how to reduce the spread of AIDS. So, yes, I do see value in a practical, holistic, comprehensive approach to education and STDs in general, including abstinence and including condoms.
I am temporarily relaxing my normal high moral ground standards to wrestle in the mud here with you by justifying your question with a response, but I am very, very rarely justly accused of shutting my eyes and ears when it comes to education.
Have I answered your questions?
I must admit, I would very much like to see this mud wrestling you speak about. :D
I wonder, is there any real law in the Qu'ran that females must be covered from head to toe? Or does it just say women must be modest?
I can understand a rule to be modest, and many religions have such a rule, but this maximum coverage thing propounded by more than one religious belief system has always bothered me. Because, apparently, these men of god can't be trusted not to fall upon a female like rutting animals if they see a forearm, or an ankle, or a lock of hair. How does that make it the fault of the woman, or make sense at all? I mean, control yourselves!
Now, let’s rewind…
:::reedle-deedle-eedle-eedle-oop!:::
As a footnote to the point: the constraints that religion can put on the scope of a person’s thought process, leading to ridiculous behavior such as Islamic surgeons not wanting to wash their hands properly, for exclusively religious reasons; I want to point out that Islam does not hold exclusive rights to religiously-inspired stupid behavior. For example, right here in America, we have people preaching “abstinence-only” plans as a comprehensive response to the AIDS pandemic. Which is equally stupid, and refutes the idea that one religion leads to more stupid behavior than another.
Now, how many times do I have to mention religion before Bruce shows up and gives me the business?
HERE I AM. I agree.
As far as I am aware there is nothing in the qu'ran stipulating total coverage. There is, however, some kind of reference to the wife of the prophet being behind a screen, or veil or somesuch and away from the eyes of men through her admirable modesty. It's a little like the way the Catholic church has argued that there should be no female priests because there weren't any female apostles in the bible. It doesn't actually stipulate, it just provides the means for emulation.
The covering up of females is a cultural phenomenon which has been fitted into a belief system (I think).
a bunch of smoke and mirrors to justify keeping women in slavery, really. In this case, Islamic male doctors can bare their forearms, right? and, oh, can these female "medics" treat male patients? bah!
Oh I totally agree Cloud. Unfortunately what we have with some of our British-born young moslem women is a tendency to want to assert their moslem identity by being, if anything, much stricter on these things than their parents might have been. They're busy asserting their right to wear veils and cover up; meanwhile a thousand miles away their moslem sisters are busy trying to assert their right not to cover up and be taken seriously as men's equals.
It's a difficult one really. The more our society goes down what appears to be an anti-Islamic path, the more these politically aware young women wish to assert their identity and the more they take on rules and strictures which, had they been born elsewhere they may see as an imposition and denial of their basic humanity. On the one hand I wish to support their right to that cultural heritage...on the other hand I want to slap them senseless for voluntarily applying the male yoke.
maybe it'll work like Muslims selling alcohol at supermarkets...
they'll call someone over to do the 'touchy' bits,
..a cultural phenomenon which has been fitted into a belief system (I think).
I remember hearing in a discussion by a Muslim academic that many of the oppressive laws that we hear of in the Middle East are Arabic tribal tradition being imposed under the guise of interpretation of the Quran.
Those people doing the interpreting, do it in a way that suits their sense of 'traditional values'.
I remember hearing in a discussion by a Muslim academic that many of the oppressive laws that we hear of in the Middle East are Arabic tribal tradition being imposed under the guise of interpretation of the Quran.
Those people doing the interpreting, do it in a way that suits their sense of 'traditional values'.
Beest you are correct. I see this happen ALL THE TIME.
And isn't that exactly what happens with every other religion, in every other place, with every other belief system?
And isn't that exactly what happens with every other religion, in every other place, with every other belief system?
Tradition has (had) a purpose. Those who ate a Hasidic diet suffered less from disease and food poisoning. Therefore we should always obey that tradition?
Another 'culture' requires ties. Why? Because once we carried our napkin with us. The tie is a perversion of something that once had a purpose.
Many cars once had emblems sticking above the hood. Why? Once those emblems opened the radiator to add water without burning hands. Why did that hood ornament exist for so long? Tradition transcends reason. Meanwhile, those emblems would pierce pedestrians.
Many people don't ask or even refuse to ask the embarrassing question: "Why?" Those who do ask tend to be innovators. Those who are tolerant tend to learn from others who had that obduracy to ask.
And isn't that exactly what happens with every other religion, in every other place, with every other belief system?
Of course it is.