TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Thanks Delft I wasn't sure if it was also backwards compatible.
Here in the US it's the other way around.
Here in the US it's the other way around.
Religious and/or ethnic issues on ships
- Thread starter Lethe
- Start date
Guys, the one thing I think that made a mess here is "word means differently in different places."
In Liaoning's case and in a broader scope the PLAN and Chinese state staffing, the following MUST be kept in mind:
Uighur, Hui, Kazak =/= Muslim
清真=/= Halal
Ethic preference or custom =/= religious tolerance (in state institution)
Another example is Last name =/= 姓(Family Name), this the VERY FIRST confusion when a Chinese and non-Chinese meet, so one should expect the confusion everywhere at any time.
We mus always remember the high chance of meaning being lost is translation. Actually except a small part of vocabulary in different languages, most words have no accurate equal translation, the further away they are from physical material the more likeness they got inaccurately translated.
Without keeping this in mind, discussion is really pointless, like a chicken talking to a duck.
In Liaoning's case and in a broader scope the PLAN and Chinese state staffing, the following MUST be kept in mind:
Uighur, Hui, Kazak =/= Muslim
清真=/= Halal
Ethic preference or custom =/= religious tolerance (in state institution)
Another example is Last name =/= 姓(Family Name), this the VERY FIRST confusion when a Chinese and non-Chinese meet, so one should expect the confusion everywhere at any time.
We mus always remember the high chance of meaning being lost is translation. Actually except a small part of vocabulary in different languages, most words have no accurate equal translation, the further away they are from physical material the more likeness they got inaccurately translated.
Without keeping this in mind, discussion is really pointless, like a chicken talking to a duck.
solarz
Brigadier
Exactly. The word 清真, while originating from "Halal", is only restricted to food, and has nothing to do with any other aspects of "Halal". In addition, the food requirements are not quite the same as those from muslim nations. The focus is more on what one can or cannot eat, rather than the method of butchery.
We need to keep in mind that China is not an immigrant nation. The Chinese muslim populations have a unique, distinct, and *diverse* set of traditions and beliefs that have been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Where the West is used to dealing with muslim practices that originate from various muslim nations (and, I suspect, has conflated what are diverse practices into a monolithic "muslim" belief), the Chinese are used to dealing with those muslim practices that have been around in China for centuries.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I "hate" you and myself for eating cat and dog, I did once in a customer banquet, that is a sin.
Dogs and cats are animals too, people have pigs as pets and they're still tasty too. It's no sin to eat an animal even as pets.
solarz
Brigadier
Dogs and cats are animals too, people have pigs as pets and they're still tasty too. It's no sin to eat an animal even as pets.
I personally would never be able to stomach eating something I've raised and grown attached to, but I also have no problem with people who are able to do so. I can't stand those people who think they can push their beliefs on others.
At the end of the day, an animal is an animal.
Brumby
Major
This is an example of why it is so difficult to have a mature discussion on this forum. You initially mischaracterise the issue of "halal" to Muslims which I corrected and in response you are fabricating something that I never said in my reply to you. Can you simply be honest in the discussions and not make up things because it can be easily proven by the sequencing of and contents of the related conversation.
The issue that you initially raised is not whether there is anything religious on board the Liaoning. How China like any nation that has a minority Muslim population deals with it is both a policy and administration issue. That was not the contention. Your initial assertion that "halal" is not a religious thing to a Muslim is simply wrong - period.
I don't think he's mischaracterized anything.
He's talking about Muslims in China (aka ethnic Uighur or Hui), and the nature of Halal in the Chinese Navy, rather than the relationship of Halal foods outside of China or in other military services around the world.
In the Chinese Navy, he's saying Halal foods are offered not due to the fundamental religious nature of any crew who may be Muslim, but rather as an ethnic variation of a style of food.
This is important, because in Chinese discourse, there is a bit of a separation between what the west considers as "Muslim" and what the Chinese consider to be "ethnic groups who happen to practice certain aspects of Islam".
So he's not being dishonest at all, but rather there is a miscommunication in terms of what Halal foods+being a of an ethnic group with a Muslim background in China means, vs what much of the western world may characterize as Islam.
Brumby
Major
Nope. I am specifically challenging two things that the poster mischaracterise.
(1) That I said a bunch of things that I did not say (post #26).
(2) That 'halal" is not a religious thing to the Muslim (post #11).
The whole bunch of other istuff about separation was never the contention. Please don't mix them up.
1: he never accused you of saying things that you did not say, that I can see. In the two posts that you quote form him in #26, he is merely clarifying what he meant, when you challenged him in post #11.
2: In the parts you quoted in post #11, he said the muslim food issue (i.e.: halal) in the Chinese Navy is no more than having a vegetarian serviceman.The second part you quoted was him talking about a comment his Muslim friend had made. I'm not sure if his friend is a Chinese muslim or a muslim from elsewhere in the world who is not particularly adherent to their practices, but either way I do not see Taxiya as saying generally that all halal everywhere in the world is "not related to religion," rather that he is talking about the situation in China itself.
More importantly, the fact is that since you brought up the question of what he meant by "halal" and "muslim" in his original post, he did a good job of clarifying what he meant in post #22 and post #14.
So I'm not sure why you are rejecting his clarifications, when they do such a good job of showing what his original post actually meant.
Brumby
Major
I expected more from you.
He quoted my post in reply. The following are the contents.
"I know someone will say something like this, however that is my fault for using the word "Muslim", instead I should have used "ethic Uighur or Kazakh or Hui" etc."
Please provide the evidence I said any of the stuff. If I did not say any of the stuff, isn't it by default a mischaracterisation?
As you said, halal "not related to religion" is a statement that was made and that is categorically not true.
Simply because the clarification is not directly connected to the issue.