Is the Burka against Islam?

[-1=e^ipi]

Recently, I have been learning a lot about Islam. Primarily because it is interesting and also because I think it is important to understand the religion that causes the majority of terrorist attacks world wide.

Anyway, I have known for a long time that the Burka (and to a lesser extent the Hijab) is not a requirement of Islam for women but more an Arabian cultural phenomenon. Admittedly many women who wear the Burka claim that it is a religious symbol as it shows their devotion to Allah and also claim that it liberates them because it frees them from the sexual desires of men, but ultimately it isn't a requirement of Islam.

But recently, I have stumbled on a number of passages that suggest to me that not only is the Burka not a requirement of Islam, but it is against Islam and of Allah's intentions.

At this point, it is probably important to reference relevant passages from Islamic texts:

The following is a good link on the moderate view of the muslim dress code for women: http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html

Quran 7:26 tells men and women to cover their private parts and dress modestly:

"O children of Adam, We have brought down to you garments to cover your private parts, as well as for adornment, yet the garment of reverence is the best. These are some of God's signs, perhaps they will remember."

Quran 24:31 is interesting in that it has many different interpretations depending on who you ask (moderate or extremist) and the fact that the meanings of words such as hijab and khimar change with time. A more extreme interpretation might be:

"And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed."

Here of course islamists might claim that the Quran is compelling women to wear head coverings that obstruct their vision, such as the burka. However, this interpretation for women to reduce their vision isn't the most common. Here is a more common interpretation:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed."

Here, the biggest difference is the interpretation of the first clause to mean women should lower their gaze, not reduce their vision. This interpretation still involves head coverings, which is why many muslim women will wear the hijab but not the burka. However, this interpretation doesn't command women to cover their heads, but rather cover their bosoms (using head coverings if they have then, which was common in Arabia during Mohammed's time).

However, more moderate muslims will point to the fact that 24:31 uses khimar instead of hijab, and in Mohammed's time, khimar meant 'covering' while hijab mean 'veil'.

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts and not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows. They shall cover their cleavage with their ‘khimar’. They shall not show their adornments except in the presence of their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, their slaves, the male attendants who have no sexual desire and the children who are yet to attain awareness of women’s nakedness. They shall not strike their feet so as to reveal details of their hidden ornaments. You shall repent to God all you believers, so that you may succeed."

So moderate muslims claim that this passage only compels them to cover their bosom and not show their cleavage. Personally, I believe the moderate interpretation is the correct one.

Quran 33:59 is also relevant in that it tells women to dress modestly in order to avoid being molested and/or raped.

"O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. This is better so that they will be recognized and not molested. God is Forgiver, Merciful."

Okay, so we have so far established that Islam compels women to dress modestly, but at the same time, the Burka and the Hijab are not requirements (or even encouraged) by Islam. But that still doesn't mean that the Burka isn't against Islam, right?

Well here is where it gets interesting. Let us look at Quran 49:13:

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."

Basically, the idea is that Allah created the different races and tribes so that people would be able to recognize each other, not because one race is better than other. This passage (and other similar passages) is used a lot by muslims to claim that Islam is against racism and tribalism.

However, in the context of the Burka it does lead to the interesting thought: 'If Allah created people to have unique features so that we would recognize each other, why would Allah then tell women to cover up in Burkas so that they become unrecognizable?' Even Quran 33:59, which tells women to dress modestly to avoid rape still tells women to dress so that they will be recognized.

After reviewing these passages, I have to conclude that the Burka is against Islam, because Allah gave people unique features so that they could be recognized. Unique features of the face is one of the most common ways that humans recognize one another and the Quran even tells women to dress so that they will be recognized. Islam only tells women to dress modestly, not wear the medieval misogynistic black tent with only two eye slits. Heck, wearing a hijab all the time significantly reduces one's ability to produce vitamin D which can lead to health problems (especially in a polar country like Canada).

So am I correct in my assessment? Is the Burka against Islam? Can the west stop pretending that the Burka is a sacred religious symbol and recognize it as the misogynistic tool that it is?

Edited November 12, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Boges]

I think most would agree facial coverings for women is completely cultural and has no base in the teachings of Islam. Then again much of what Catholics believe can't be found in the Bible either.

[Michael Hardner]

Recently, I have been learning a lot about Islam. Primarily because it is interesting and also because I think it is important to understand the religion that causes the majority of terrorist attacks world wide.

Sorry, can you prove that Islam kills/attacks more people than other religions or countries have in the past or do today ?

I just can't get past this assertion in your first paragraph, sorry.

Furthermore the idea that any religion "causes" anything is pretty much unprovable. The best you could hope to do is establish a link between some cultures and violence, if that.

[Boges]

Sorry, can you prove that Islam kills/attacks more people than other religions or countries have in the past or do today ?

I just can't get past this assertion in your first paragraph, sorry.

Furthermore the idea that any religion "causes" anything is pretty much unprovable. The best you could hope to do is establish a link between some cultures and violence, if that.

I can provide many examples of Islamists killing people in the name of the ongoing problems in Egypt and the Mall incident in Kenya are very recent examples.

Other than perhaps Ugandan cults could you cite recent examples of mass killings in the name of Jesus?

[Michael Hardner]

I can provide many examples of Islamists killing people in the name of the ongoing problems in Egypt and the Mall incident in Kenya are very recent examples.

Other than perhaps Ugandan cults could you cite recent examples of mass killings in the name of Jesus?

This is old territory, though. Claiming that 'recent' 'terrorist' 'killings' in the news are dominated by one religion is not the same as saying that the religion in question causes people to be violent.

It's old material for MLW, and unless somebody has some new answers, we should just go back and read old threads.

[Boges]

This is old territory, though. Claiming that 'recent' 'terrorist' 'killings' in the news are dominated by one religion is not the same as saying that the religion in question causes people to be violent.

It's old material for MLW, and unless somebody has some new answers, we should just go back and read old threads.

I think many in the religion believe Jihad or "Struggle" is a calling to arms against the "infidel"

From "Jihad's" wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle.[2] The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties.[2][6] This non-violent meaning is stressed by both Muslim[7] and non-Muslim[8] authors. However, there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[9]

I don't know of doctrine like that in any other mainstream religion. Again all religious texts are up for interpretation but I challenge anyone find a passage from the New Testament that can be thought of as a call to arms.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know of doctrine like that in any other mainstream religion. Again all religious texts are up for interpretation but I challenge anyone find a passage from the New Testament that can be thought of as a call to arms.

Boges, I'm telling you this is old material. We've talked about Leviticus and the whole circular argument discussions around Holy Books and religions. The discussions just go on and no one is convinced, in the end.

[Boges]

Boges, I'm telling you this is old material. We've talked about Leviticus and the whole circular argument discussions around Holy Books and religions. The discussions just go on and no one is convinced, in the end.

OK, regardless this thread is about the Burka and the cultural significance of that.

[Michael Hardner]

I hear you. And I'm interested in the answer, but given the statement in the OP ... I can't let it go, since I spent another whole thread circling around this poster's statements, trying to find a framework for discussion.

It's a good question, though the way it's framed by the poster is sloppy as usual, ie. refers to "islamists" [sic] in his argument vs. moderate Muslims without any explanation, and the entire premise that somebody outside the religion can prove what is in the religion and what isn't.

This reminds me of protestants who refer to catholics as 'papists'.

[GostHacked]

The Burka is not part of 'official' Islam garb. The Hijab is.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sorry, can you prove that Islam kills/attacks more people than other religions or countries have in the past or do today ?

I just can't get past this assertion in your first paragraph, sorry.

Furthermore the idea that any religion "causes" anything is pretty much unprovable. The best you could hope to do is establish a link between some cultures and violence, if that.

1. This isn't what this thread is about so you are going a bit off topic here. We are supposed to discuss if the Burka is against Islam or not. I was only briefly explaining my motive for learning about Islam.

2. Here is a link that suggests that 70% of terrorist murders in 2011 where done by Sunni Extremists (not even counting Shia or other muslim groups): http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

3. To answer your comment that religion cannot cause someone to do something violent, here is the justification of the UK person who killed Lee Rigby in broad daylight in London on why he killed Lee Rigby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruTu8MhSdR4

It's a good question, though the way it's framed by the poster is sloppy as usual, ie. refers to "islamists" [sic] in his argument vs. moderate Muslims without any explanation, and the entire premise that somebody outside the religion can prove what is in the religion and what isn't.

The terms Islamists and moderate muslims are well defined, though who is a moderate and who is an islamist is always relative. Perhaps if you read this it would help you understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Anyway, if I were to define one difference between Islamists and moderates, it is that islamists generally want to impose Sharia Law and take more conservative interpretations of the Islamic texts, where as moderates prefer secular law and lake more literal interpretations of Islamic texts. The original post has an example of a passage in the Quran (24:31), where I give 3 different interpretations.

Lastly, the idea that someone outside of Islam cannot determine what Islam teaches is nonsense and is an ad hominem fallacy. According to Islam, the Quran is a perfectly clear book that is the word of Allah through the prophet Mohammed so why wouldn't a kaffir be able to understand if the Burka is against islam or not?

I think many in the religion believe Jihad or "Struggle" is a calling to arms against the "infidel"

From "Jihad's" wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Jihad is a very interesting concept. Generally, Islam is all inclusive in it's ways on how to spread Islam, making it a very effective religion on spreading itself. Yes jihad can include military campaigns against kaffir, but it can also include an internal struggle about the belief in islam, or even discussing Islam on internet forums.

Anyway, this thread is about the Burka. Can we please discuss the Burka? I made the claim that the Burka is unislamic and have provided my reasoning plus references to the Quran. Can anyone dispute this at all?

Edited November 12, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

The Burka is not part of 'official' Islam garb. The Hijab is.

And I have suggested that both are not required by islam, and can even be called unislamic. What makes you think that the Hijab is part of 'official' islam? How do you even define 'official' islam?

[GostHacked]

And I have suggested that both are not required by islam, and can even be called unislamic. What makes you think that the Hijab is part of 'official' islam? How do you even define 'official' islam?

Long standing customs of said religion. The Hijab is worn in many more places than the burka and predates it by centuries. The burka is modern repressive garb that has no place in Islam. However, I can see the Burka as an interpretation of 'the curtain'. Required might be a bad word, encouraged would be better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

The term hijab in Arabic literally means “a screen or curtain” and is used in the Qur'an to refer to a partition. The Qur'an tells the male believers (Muslims) to talk to the wives of the Prophet Muhammad behind a hijab. This hijab was the responsibility of the men and not the wives of Prophet Muhammad. Most Islamic legal systems define this type of modest dressing as covering everything except the face and hands in public.[5][7] Guidelines for covering of the entire body except for the hands, the feet and the face, are found in texts of fiqh and hadith that are developed after the Qur'an.[6] Some interpretations, however, say that a veil is not compulsory in front of blind, asexual or gay men.[8][9][10] Αlthough hijab is often seen by westerners as a tool utilized by men to control and silence women, the practice is understood differently in different contexts.[11] Μen have also partaken in the practice of veiling. Fadwa El Guindi, a prominent Islamic scholar, writes, “Confining the study of the veil, just like the study of women, to the domain of gender in lieu of society and culture narrows the scope in a way that limits cultural understanding and theoretical conceptualization” (10). Post September 11, 2001, the hijab has generated much controversy and stereotyping. Many countries have attempted to restrict the wearing of the hijab in public spaces, causing outcry both within and outside of the Muslim community and compelling women to veil as a statement against repression.[12]

[-1=e^ipi]

@ GhostHack - so if one where to argue:

According to 49:13 of the quran, Allah created difference races and tribes so that people would be able to recognize each other. 33:59 says that women should be dressed in such a way that they are recognized. Therefore, Allah created different types of hair (straight, curly, black, brown, blonde, etc.) so that people would be able to recognize each other. Therefore covering the hair is against islam (making the Hijab against islam) as it makes it more difficult to recognize each other.

How would this interpretation be wrong?

[Michael Hardner]

1. This isn't what this thread is about so you are going a bit off topic here. We are supposed to discuss if the Burka is against Islam or not. I was only briefly explaining my motive for learning about Islam.

Yes, your motives are clearer in what you don't say in that opening paragraph.

2. Here is a link that suggests that 70% of terrorist murders in 2011 where done by Sunni Extremists (not even counting Shia or other muslim groups): http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

3. To answer your comment that religion cannot cause someone to do something violent, here is the justification of the UK person who killed Lee Rigby in broad daylight in London on why he killed Lee Rigby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruTu8MhSdR4

2. That's interesting, but those countries are all at war, or severe turmoil.

3. Videos aren't proof of anything. I don't get my arguments from watching movies.

The terms Islamists and moderate muslims are well defined,

Yes, but they aren't the opposite of each other. There's a middle group called conservative, observant Muslims that you haven't addressed.

Lastly, the idea that someone outside of Islam cannot determine what Islam teaches is nonsense and is an ad hominem fallacy.

I said 'proves'. Your arguments assume that opinion is fact.

[-1=e^ipi]

2. That's interesting, but those countries are all at war, or severe turmoil.

3. Videos aren't proof of anything. I don't get my arguments from watching movies.

Islam causes turmoil.

The link I gave isn't a movie. The murderer provides exactly his reasons for committing the murder.

Yes, but they aren't the opposite of each other. There's a middle group called conservative, observant Muslims that you haven't addressed.

Uhh, I gave 3 interpretations of 24:31 of the Quran in the first post. Does the middle interpretation not count as the interpretation of this middle group?

I said 'proves'. Your arguments assume that opinion is fact.

Sigh, now you're stuck on this concept of absolute proof to derail discussion again.

I cannot prove that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination so why should I bother responding to your ridiculous requests for proof that are well beyond what is provable? The best I can do is justify strongly with sources to the Quran.

Either way, your earlier comment refered to the fact that I was non-muslim to demerit my discussion of Islam. How is that not ad-hominem?

Edited November 12, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Boges]

Either way, your earlier comment refered to the fact that I was non-muslim to demerit my discussion of Islam. How is that not ad-hominem?

Being a part of the religion sure doesn't stop people from commenting on Christianity.

[cybercoma]

Either way, your earlier comment refered to the fact that I was non-muslim to demerit my discussion of Islam. How is that not ad-hominem?

That's not what was said. MH didn't say you can't talk about Islam because you're not Muslim, nor did he, as you write, "demerit [your] discussion of Islam" for that reason. The problem is with someone from outside of a group trying to define that group for others. This same thing has come up on this forum with Christians arguing that atheism is one thing when atheists on this forum have set out a very clear definition for atheism. As a non-Muslim, you don't get to say that Muslims are wrong about Islam and that your definition is the "right" one. Likewise, Muslims don't get to define Christianity for Christians or Judaism for Jews. That's the problem. It's not an ad hominem, since it's entirely pertinent to the discussion. It highlights your own argumentative error of creating a false definition to suit your own purpose.

[Michael Hardner]

Islam causes turmoil.

Does not.

The link I gave isn't a movie. The murderer provides exactly his reasons for committing the murder.

How not to determine the causes behind an insane murderer's actions: ask him and take the response as lucid truth.

Uhh, I gave 3 interpretations of 24:31 of the Quran in the first post.

Besides you quoting from your holy book, you stated that anybody who wears these religious garments is an 'islamist'.

Not true.

Sigh, now you're stuck on this concept of absolute proof to derail discussion again.

And you're just stating your opinions as facts. We've seen where this leads.

The best I can do is justify strongly with sources to the Quran.

Who is convinced by such arguments ? Wouldn't you say that 'Islamists' are ? Because I'm not.

Either way, your earlier comment refered to the fact that I was non-muslim to demerit my discussion of Islam.

No, we can discuss any religion but criticism of a religion from outside will not change it, or anything really.

I would have hoped you'd learn from your last go-round. That thread simply ended with a lot of unanswered questions, and no progress. I'd like to try something different.

Let's read from religious scholar William T Cavanaugh

The idea that religion causes violence is taken as an almost self-evident truth in many circles. Atheists often use this as a justification for embracing a “secular” lifestyle and belief system that does not acknowledge the existence of God. But there are big problems with this line of reasoning. Religious scholar William T. Cavanaugh writes in [/size]The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict[/size]:[/size]

“What would be necessary to prove the claim that religion has caused more violence than any other institutional force over the course of human history? One would first need a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of human history. …The problem is that there was no category of religion separable from such political institutions until the modern era, and then it was primarily in the West. What meaning could we give to either the claim that Roman religion is to blame for the imperialist violence of ancient Rome, or the claim that it is Roman politics and not Roman religion that is to blame? Either claim would be nonsensical, because there was no neat division between religion and politics.”

“It is not simply that religion and politics were jumbled together until the modern West got them properly sorted out. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed in his landmark book, The Meaning and End of Religion, religion as a discrete category of human activity separable from culture, politics, and other areas of life is an invention of the modern West.”

“…The first conclusion is that there is no trans-historical or trans-cultural concept of religion. Religion has a history, and what counts as religion and what does not in any given context depends on different configurations of power and authority. The second conclusion is that the attempt to say that there is a trans-historical and trans-cultural concept of religion that is separable from secular phenomena is itself part of a particular configuration of power, that of the modern, liberal nation-state as it is developed in the West.”

Thus, it is impossible to establish which conflicts were caused by “religion” and which conflicts were caused by “politics” or “culture” because such categories have no intrinsic meaning, but rather, are human inventions. Cavanaugh continues:

“At first glance, this may seem like an academic exercise in quibbling over definitions, but much more is at stake. The religious-secular dichotomy in the arguments sanctions the condemnation of certain kinds of violence and the overlooking of other kinds of violence. …The myth of religious violence is so prevalent because, while it delegitimates certain kinds of violence, it is used to legitimate other kinds of violence, namely, violence done in the name of secular, Western ideals. The argument that religion causes violence sanctions a dichotomy between, on the one hand, non-Western, especially Muslim, forms of culture, which—having not yet learned to privatize matters of faith—are absolutist, divisive, irrational, and Western culture on the other, which is modest in its claims to truth, unitive and rational.”

[-1=e^ipi]

As a non-Muslim, you don't get to say that Muslims are wrong about Islam and that your definition is the "right" one. Likewise, Muslims don't get to define Christianity for Christians or Judaism for Jews. That's the problem.

Yeah.. this is ad hominem. Attacking a speaker's religious beliefs rather than the points they make. Non-muslims and muslims alike can discuss what is 'true islam'.

Does not.

Does too!!! See? I can play the blatant assertion game as well. Look, I already discussed this in an earlier thread about how islam causes people to do actions that can cause turmoil. But you wish to cling to your irrational cultural relativist belief. Anyway, this thread is about the Burka so please do not try to derail it.

How not to determine the causes behind an insane murderer's actions: ask him and take the response as lucid truth.

1. There is no evidence to suggest the murderer was insane. The murder rationalized his actions quite successfully. The guy seems about as sane as Anders Breivik.

2. No one asked the murderer why he committed his actions. The murderer told other people why on his own free will.

3. I see nothing wrong with listening to why people who commit murders say they commit murders. Noone the cause of these murders helps to stop it. Again you are just making an unjustified false assertion.

Besides you quoting from your holy book, you stated that anybody who wears these religious garments is an 'islamist'.

Where did I state this?

And you're just stating your opinions as facts. We've seen where this leads.

What are you talking about? I provided evidence, reasoning and sources to justify my claim that Burkas are un-Islamic. You on the other hand only respond to the first sentence of my entire original post in an attempt to derail this thread. Why not respond to the passages I quoted from the Quran?

Maybe it would help if I define muslim/islam for you. A muslim is a person who beleives in Islam. Islam is the belief in the shahada (there is no god but allah, and mohammed is the final messenger of allah). Because the Quran is a compilation of the teachings of mohammed, it must be taken as the literal word of god (this is quite different from Christianity, where the Bible was written decades after Jesus). The Quran states that it is the word of god, that it is perfectly clear, and it has a concept of abrogation where later verses abrogate previous verses so that muslims know what to do if they find two conflicting verses.

Now if you understand the previous paragraph, maybe you should go back and reread the original post with this understanding of the importance of the Quran.

No, we can discuss any religion but criticism of a religion from outside will not change it, or anything really.

Huh? Did I make the claim that I wish to change islam? I merely wanted to discuss if the Burka is un-islamic or not.

With respect to your quote from a religious scholar, this is not the thread to discuss if religion causes violence. This is a thread to discuss the Burka. If you wish to start your own thread, please do so. But please do not derail this thread.

[Guest]

The Myth of Religious Violence, eh?

Well, I haven't read it, but I did read his other major work, The Myth of the Moon Landings. That one was good.

[cybercoma]

Yeah.. this is ad hominem. Attacking a speaker's religious beliefs rather than the points they make. Non-muslims and muslims alike can discuss what is 'true islam'.

The point is that you're trying to define what is part of the religion, when all evidence suggests otherwise. You've thrown out the evidence and claiming the authority to define the religion for them. You haven't supported your argument with anything other than your own made up ideas, which have no bearing on reality whatsoever. That's the point. Your fantasy definitions might have some sort of credibility if you were some sort of authority within the religion. You're not. So that line of reasoning is relevant and as such not a logical fallacy.

[Michael Hardner]

Does too!!! See? I can play the blatant assertion game as well.

Blatant assertions !

Look, I already discussed this in an earlier thread about how islam causes people to do actions that can cause turmoil.

See the quote below, Cavanaugh explains why you're wrong.

I see nothing wrong with listening to [murderers]

That's quite an amoral view.

Where did I state this?

You describe 'islamists' [sic] implicitly as people who wear religious gear. It's just sloppy presentation of an argument.

Why not respond to the passages I quoted from the Quran?

I'm not Muslim so I don't believe the Koran.

Huh? Did I make the claim that I wish to change islam? I merely wanted to discuss if the Burka is un-islamic or not.

I don't accept your scholarship on the topic.

With respect to your quote from a religious scholar, this is not the thread to discuss if religion causes violence.

Then why did you claim that Islam causes turmoil ? Make up your mind.

It's very sloppy.

[dre]

What are you talking about? I provided evidence, reasoning and sources to justify my claim that Burkas are un-Islamic. You on the other hand only respond to the first sentence of my entire original post in an attempt to derail this thread. Why not respond to the passages I quoted from the Quran?

Religion in practice is only loosely based on the fraudulent holy books that religion is derived from. In general people do what the feel like doing, and what those they look to as leaders say they should do. Quoting passages of the quran as proof that the burka is anti islamic is no different that quoting passages of the bible that suggest that capitalism or the pursuit of earthly wealth is unchristian.

You are wasting your time, based on your own misunderstanding of how these belief systems work.

[-1=e^ipi]

The point is that you're trying to define what is part of the religion, when all evidence suggests otherwise.

What am I trying to define is part of what religion that isn't part of the religion? And what is all this evidence that suggests otherwise? You're making a pretty ridiculous claim.

You haven't supported your argument with anything other than your own made up ideas, which have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Uhhh, I provided relevant quotations of the Quran, explained their relevance and I have also provided a link to a moderate muslim website explaining the islamic women's dress code. But clearly, I haven't provided any support whatsoever *sarcasm*...

Your fantasy definitions might have some sort of credibility if you were some sort of authority within the religion. You're not.

Yeah, this is again an ad hominem fallacy. Is your brain broken or how many times do I have to point this out? Maybe you should read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

See the quote below, Cavanaugh explains why you're wrong.

Your religious scholar is not correct, but this thread is not the place to discuss it. Create your own thread if you want to discuss if religion causes violence, but do not derail this thread.

You describe 'islamists' [sic] implicitly as people who wear religious gear. It's just sloppy presentation of an argument.

I never made this claim. You must be misunderstanding me.

I'm not Muslim so I don't believe the Koran.

Neither am I but it doesn't matter whether we believe in the Quran. What matters is the muslims believe that the Quran is the word of god through the prophet Mohammed, the last messenger of Allah. Therefore, it is the highest source in determining what is or isn't an acceptable women's dress code according to islam.

I don't accept your scholarship on the topic.

Is this an attempt at an ad hominem fallacy? Or just a sentence that has no relevance to this discussion?