Is the Burka against Islam?

[Michael Hardner]

Your religious scholar is not correct,

I hardly think that you can argue with him, given his credentials:

http://works.bepress.com/william_cavanaugh/

You must be misunderstanding me.

In this quote of yours you use the term "islamists" incorrectly:

"Here of course islamists might claim that the Quran is compelling women to wear head coverings that obstruct their vision, such as the burka."

Neither am I

Then why do you quote the Quran in your argument ?

[-1=e^ipi]

Religion in practice is only loosely based on the fraudulent holy books that religion is derived from.

Dre, I do not agree with this at all. If you wish to make this statement please provide strong justification.

The problem with most westerners when trying to understand islam (or other religions) is they have a very christian-centric view and a very cultural-relativist view. Westerners often assume that all other religions are 'like' christianity, that the quran is comparable in importance with the bible, etc. The fact is, different religions are different and they should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

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.

It is very different.

The bible is a diverse collection of stories and cannot be taken as the literal word of gold. It include things from the old testament (going back hundreds of years before Jesus) and the new testament (which was compiled decades or centuries after Jesus, by people who never met Jesus or even spoke the same language as Jesus).

Now the Quran on the other hand was revealed to Mohammed by Allah, memorized orally, and compiled by Mohammed's companions shortly after Mohammed was poisoned. As a result, the Quran has far less flexibility of interpretation when compared to the bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

"Muslims believe that the Quran was verbally revealed from God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril), gradually over a period of approximately 23 years, beginning on 22 December 609 CE,^[8] when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death.^[1][9][10] Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Quran was collected by his companions using written Quranic materials and everything that had been memorized of the Quran."

Edited November 13, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

In this quote of yours you use the term "islamists" incorrectly:

"Here of course islamists might claim that the Quran is compelling women to wear head coverings that obstruct their vision, such as the burka."

Yes and I'm not saying that islamists are those that wear religious gear (as was your earlier claim).

Then why do you quote the Quran in your argument ?

Because this discussion is 'Is the Burka against Islam?'. In order to determine what is halal (permissible) or harem (forbidden) in Islam it makes sense to look at the most important holy book in Islam.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes and I'm not saying that islamists are those that wear religious gear (as was your earlier claim).

Thank you.

. In order to determine what is halal (permissible) or harem (forbidden) in Islam ...

We don't have the benefit of your years in training as a Mullah so how do you expect us to refute your specious claims ?

What about Cavanaugh's explanation ? I see you have nothing to say about it, which is not surprising.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's quite an amoral view.

It is amoral to listen to murderers to understand why they commit murders in order to prevent future murders? What a messed up view of morality you have!

We don't have the benefit of your years in training as a Mullah so how do you expect us to refute your specious claims ?

I don't have training in a Mullah either. But that doesn't stop me from doing my own research. What is stopping you?

But that leads to another question. If you have a weaker understanding of Islam and cannot refute my claims, why do you insist that I am wrong? Your approach seems dogmatic. Why not look at the evidence I have provided and make up your own mind?

What about Cavanaugh's explanation ? I see you have nothing to say about it, which is not surprising.

I do not mind discussing this in another thread, but do not derail this one. Again, if you want to discuss this then make a separate thread.

[Michael Hardner]

It is amoral to listen to murderers

To take advice from them, yes.

I don't have training in a Mullah either.

Exactly, then how are you making pronouncements for Muslims ?

Why not look at the evidence I have provided and make up your own mind?

I find the references interesting and appreciate that you bring them here, but by your own admission and by your words, the motivation is a prejudice against Muslims. I much prefer open minded and reasonable discussion.

I do not mind discussing this in another thread,

I guess you could provide the 'progressive racism' thread, hmm ?

[cybercoma]

"Here of course islamists might claim that the Quran is compelling women to wear head coverings that obstruct their vision, such as the burka."

Even the language is unsure here. Hedging perhaps? Edited November 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Even the language is unsure here. Hedging perhaps?

Hedging and sloppy. Why do we care what islamists [sic, again] have to say in this argument ? This is why the unprintable name poster's posts are impossible to respond to, every sentence raises questions, and requires clarification.

They're like a boxcar full of guinea pigs let loose in the mall.

[GostHacked]

So this thread is about the Burka, right? How did we get into the whole 'Islam = bad' thing again??

[Michael Hardner]

So this thread is about the Burka, right? How did we get into the whole 'Islam = bad' thing again??

From the OP and statements from the poster that he/she tosses out without much attention to what they mean.

[-1=e^ipi]

Exactly, then how are you making pronouncements for Muslims ?

By reading the Quran & Islamic texts. It also helps to listen to muslims explain their religion. I find that Zakir Naik is pretty good at this (despite being banned from speaking in the UK & Canada, so much for freedom of speech): http://www.youtube.com/user/zakirnaikdotnet

I find the references interesting and appreciate that you bring them here, but by your own admission and by your words, the motivation is a prejudice against Muslims. I much prefer open minded and reasonable discussion.

My motivation for being interested in Islam shouldn't matter. What should matter are the facts and what the Quran says. Also, if I were so prejudiced against muslims, why would I be arguing that the true islamic dress code isn't as extreme as some people make it out to be? In this case I am siding with moderate muslims with respect to the burka (where as with respect to other issues such as how Islam treats kaffir, I side more with the islamists).

Even the language is unsure here. Hedging perhaps?

Uhh... it depends on the islamist. Not all islamists think that women should wear burkas. Many are fine with just the hijab.

So this thread is about the Burka, right? How did we get into the whole 'Islam = bad' thing again??

Cause Michael keeps trying to derail this thread.

[Moonlight Graham]

The Quran says:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. (Quran 24:31)

That could be interpreted any number of ways. How do you define what "beauty" is physically on a woman? Does it end with sexual parts like legs, and waist or cleavage etc? Or things like hair, eyes, lips, etc.?

I would say that wearing hair up instead of down would be "modest", and wearing long, loose (not form-fitting) clothing that covers the legs to the collarbone/shoulders. would be appropriate in today's society. Neck, hand, and face seems fair game. A burka is obviously ridiculous.

Historical context for the hijab:

The term hijab is never used in the Qur'an to describe an article of clothing.^[30] The only verses in the Qur'an that specifically reference women’s clothing, are those promoting modesty, instructing women to guard their private parts and throw a scarf over their bosoms in the presence of men.^[30] The contemporary understanding of the hijab dates back to Hadith when the “verse of the hijab” descended upon the community in 627 C.E.^[31] Now documented in Sura 33: 53 the verse states, “And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts”.^[32] This verse, however, was not addressed to women in general, but exclusively to Muhammad’s wives. As Muhammad’s influence increased, he entertained more and more visitors in the mosque, which was then his home. Often, these visitors stayed the night only feet away from his wives’ apartments. It is commonly understood that this verse was intentioned to protect his wives from these strangers.^[33]During Muhammad’s lifetime no other women in the Ummah (Muslim community) observed the hijab. Instead, the term for donning the veil, darabat al-hijab, was used interchangeably with “becoming Muhammad’s wife”.^[34] As stated by Muslim Scholar Reza Aslan, “The veil was neither compulsory nor widely adopted until generations after Muhammad’s death, when a large body of male scriptural and legal scholars began using their religious and political authority to regain the dominance they had lost in society as a result of the Prophet’s egalitarian reforms”.^[33] Other scholars point out that the Qur'an does not require women to wear veils; rather, it was a social habit picked up with the expansion of Islam. In fact, since it was impractical for working women to wear veils, "A veiled woman silently announced that her husband was rich enough to keep her idle."

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

[-1=e^ipi]

The Quran says:

That could be interpreted any number of ways. How do you define what "beauty" is physically on a woman? Does it end with sexual parts like legs, and waist or cleavage etc? Or things like hair, eyes, lips, etc.?

True, though you have to remember that the Quran can only be truly understood in 7th century arabic. But from what I understand (and the link provided in the original post), it is very unlikely that 24:31 is telling women to cover lips & eyes. Burka is obviously ridiculous.

[-1=e^ipi]

Here is an article that is relevant:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/quebec-values-charter-gets-a-boost-from-liberal-muslim-mna-1.1543816

Apparently, Quebec's only muslim member of parliament has decided to break ranks with the liberal party in their absolute opposition to the charter.

"I refuse any drift toward cultural relativism under the guise of religion, to legitimize a symbol like the chador, which is the ultimate expression of oppression of women, in addition to being the symbol of radical fundamentalism,"

[Guest]

Whilst I agree with her in principle, the comment that she is upset about does seem pretty benign.

"The reaction was to comments by Marc Tanguay, her party's secularism critic, who said he would welcome Liberal candidates wearing the chador and would be happy to sit with them in the legislature. The chador is an open cloak which extends over the head but does not cover the face. It is worn by many Iranian women."

It comes down to choice. I abhor the practice of forcing anyone to wear an item of clothing that they don't want to wear, but how is it better to prevent them from wearing it if they do want to?

Edited November 15, 2013 by bcsapper

[The_Squid]

Is the Burka against Islam?

Who the hell knows... Like any religious text, there are so many interpretations of the exact same words that the original intent is completely lost. And if the original intent was to keep women submissive servants, then it is an outdated, sexist religion that needs to be brought into the 21st century's secular Canadian values.

I am starting to think that Quebec's new law ain't so bad...

[-1=e^ipi]

Whilst I agree with her in principle, the comment that she is upset about does seem pretty benign.

Yes, this shows how strongly some moderates believe in their position.

It comes down to choice. I abhor the practice of forcing anyone to wear an item of clothing that they don't want to wear, but how is it better to prevent them from wearing it if they do want to?

We force people to wear hard-hats in construction sites and it is generally illegal to run around naked. Do you abhor these practices?

Personally, I don't think that dress codes should be based on religion. The law should apply to everyone regardless of gender or religion. So a law shouldn't prevent someone from wearing a hijab because it is religious, but the law shouldn't allow someone to wear a burka because it is religious. The burka and kirpan should be disallowed because they are face coverings and daggers respectively (unless you want to legalize people wearing face coverings and daggers everywhere), but on the other hand the hijab and turban should be allowed (unless you want to ban hats and/or bandannas). As a result, I dislike the positions of both the LPQ and the PQ with respect to the charter (because the LPQ wants to bend over backwards for cultural relativist reasons while the PQ wants to ban non-catholic religions symbols for ethnic nationalist reasons). The CAQ seems to be the only party with a reasonable position on the Quebec charter of laicite.

[-1=e^ipi]

Who the hell knows...

Well many muslims believe they know the answer to this question. The Quran does say it is perfectly clear and does have a system of abrogation to deal with conflicting verses, so it might be worthwhile to read the Quran and determine what is and isn't allowed according to islam.

And if the original intent was to keep women submissive servants

From what I can tell, the intent was to prevent rape, not to keep women servants. Yes islam is sexist but that is in other parts of the quran unrelated to the burka or islamic clothing.

I am starting to think that Quebec's new law ain't so bad...

But the thing is that understanding Islam's position on the Burka is very relevant when it comes to the discussion on the Quebec charter of laicite. If the burka is unislamic, as I claim it to be, then it becomes much easier to justify banning the burka in the workplace.

[jacee]

Personally, I don't think that dress codes should be based on religion. The law should apply to everyone regardless of gender or religion. So a law shouldn't prevent someone from wearing a hijab because it is religious, but the law shouldn't allow someone to wear a burka because it is religious. The burka and kirpan should be disallowed because they are face coverings and daggers respectively (unless you want to legalize people wearing face coverings and daggers everywhere), but on the other hand the hijab and turban should be allowed (unless you want to ban hats and/or bandannas). As a result, I dislike the positions of both the LPQ and the PQ with respect to the charter (because the LPQ wants to bend over backwards for cultural relativist reasons while the PQ wants to ban non-catholic religions symbols for ethnic nationalist reasons). The CAQ seems to be the only party with a reasonable position on the Quebec charter of laicite.

So now you've stated your opinion, as you are entitled to do.

What you are not entitled to do is to decide what someone else's religion does or does not require or allow.

Religion is personal, and there are variations of practices within each religion as well, different denominations, different degrees of orthodoxy, regional differences, etc.

It's not up to an outsider to determine what a religion 'requires'.

For that reason, I find this thread inappropriate.

[Guest]

We force people to wear hard-hats in construction sites and it is generally illegal to run around naked. Do you abhor these practices?

No we don't. We tell them they can't work there if they don't. They are not forced to wear one.

And of course, that is a different situation, having to do with health and safety. I support the seat belt and motorcycle helmet for the same reason. (If my spouse tried to force me to wear a motorcycle helmet all the time, I'd object)

Nakedness, I don't know what is illegal and what isn't. I could certainly support some leeway there.

Edited November 15, 2013 by bcsapper

[-1=e^ipi]

What you are not entitled to do is to decide what someone else's religion does or does not require or allow.

Sure I can.

It's not up to an outsider to determine what a religion 'requires'.

Ad hominem fallacy.

No we don't. We tell them they can't work there if they don't. They are not forced to wear one.

How is disallowing someone from having a job if they refuse to wear a hard hat that different from disallowing someone from having a job if they refuse to not wear a burka?

Nakedness, I don't know what is illegal and what isn't. I could certainly support some leeway there.

Nakedness is illegal. If you don't believe me, run around naked on the streets and see how long it takes you to get arrested.

[Michael Hardner]

How is disallowing someone from having a job if they refuse to wear a hard hat that different from disallowing someone from having a job if they refuse to not wear a burka?

This is possibly the silliest thing I've read today.

[Guest]

How is disallowing someone from having a job if they refuse to wear a hard hat that different from disallowing someone from having a job if they refuse to not wear a burka?

Nakedness is illegal. If you don't believe me, run around naked on the streets and see how long it takes you to get arrested.

You didn't post the rest of my comment. It's a safety issue. I'm not going to be forced to wear a seatbelt while I watch TV, but I will have to do so in my car.

A woman who wants to wear a burka around rotating machinery will probably be told she can't. If she really wants to wear one on a receptionist's desk at a government office, with no rotating machinery in sight, who am I to tell he she can't?

I believe you with regards to nakedness.

Edited November 15, 2013 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

This is possibly the silliest thing I've read today.

Generous.

[Peter F]

But the thing is that understanding Islam's position on the Burka is very relevant when it comes to the discussion on the Quebec charter of laicite. If the burka is unislamic, as I claim it to be, then it becomes much easier to justify banning the burka in the workplace.

Ok, but the only one providing Islams position is you - and you're no Imam.