Is the Burka against Islam?

[-1=e^ipi]

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

Thank you for your very enlightening contribution. *sarcasm*

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.

The Burka is a safety issue. It prevents people from seeing the face making it more difficult to identify people. There is a reason you cannot wear a mask when you enter a bank.

But either way I was giving an example of someone being told they had to apply to a dress code or they would lose their job. For some reason you are fine with this when it comes to hardhats but not okay with this when it comes to the Burka. Why is this? You have not provided justification.

[-1=e^ipi]

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

Ad hominem... again

Wow! Are logical fallacies the only thing you guys can do in response to my argument?

[Guest]

Thank you for your very enlightening contribution. *sarcasm*

The Burka is a safety issue. It prevents people from seeing the face making it more difficult to identify people. There is a reason you cannot wear a mask when you enter a bank.

But either way I was giving an example of someone being told they had to apply to a dress code or they would lose their job. For some reason you are fine with this when it comes to hardhats but not okay with this when it comes to the Burka. Why is this? You have not provided justification.

I said I would have someone remove a burka if there was a safety issue. I used rotating machinery as an example. I daresay I would also make her wear a hard hat.

The justification would have to come from someone who is asking someone else to behave in a manner they would not normally behave. I make you wear a hard had, I can justify that. I make you take a burka off to pass through customs or give evidence, I can justify that.

I cannot provide justification for making someone remove an item they wish to wear, be it a burka, a cross, a yarmulke, a turban or whatever, if I have no reason other than I don't like it.

[Peter F]

Ad hominem... again

Wow! Are logical fallacies the only thing you guys can do in response to my argument?

What is your argument? That Burka's are not part of the religion of Islam.

Point being? Lets ban the Burka.

Is it now your argument that the wearing of burkas should be banned?

Edited November 16, 2013 by Peter F

[Peter F]

I shall also add: Ad Hominem my arse.

It is not ad hominem to claim you don't really know what you are talking about. Abrogation for one example. Plus the invocation of the ol' don't believe muslims because islam says its ok to lie to unbelievers.

You have been attempting to make a theological argument with, shall I say, very limited knowledge of the theology you are arguing.

[-1=e^ipi]

I said I would have someone remove a burka if there was a safety issue. I used rotating machinery as an example. I daresay I would also make her wear a hard hat.

The justification would have to come from someone who is asking someone else to behave in a manner they would not normally behave. I make you wear a hard had, I can justify that. I make you take a burka off to pass through customs or give evidence, I can justify that.

The safety issue of face coverings goes beyond rotary machines and passing through customs. In general it makes it difficult for people to identify each other. Are you allowed to go to the bank in a hockey mask? Don't some cities have bylaws against protesting with your face covered? Wouldn't some jobs fire you if you decided to show up to work wearing a V for Vendetta mask? All I ask is for consistency of the law, the burka should be treated like any other face covering and no special exceptions should be made for it.

I cannot provide justification for making someone remove an item they wish to wear, be it a burka, a cross, a yarmulke, a turban or whatever, if I have no reason other than I don't like it.

Covering of the face is a security issue as it makes it difficult for people to identify each other. If everyone covered their faces then it would become much easier for criminals to move about in public and avoid law enforcers.

Is it now your argument that the wearing of burkas should be banned?

My primary argument in this thread is that the burka is against islam because it goes against Allah's desire for people to be able to recognize each other. There is some discussion about the Quebec Charter of laicite because whether or not the burka or hijab are allowed/mandatory in islam is relevant to that debate.

I shall also add: Ad Hominem my arse. It is not ad hominem to claim you don't really know what you are talking about.

Yes it is, especially when it is the entirety of your counter argument. Maybe you would have better luck trying to use the Islamic texts to justify your disagreement with me? Or is it that you do not have sufficient knowledge of Islam to justify your support of the burka and your support of the burka is based upon an irrational adherence to cultural relativism?

Abrogation for one example. Plus the invocation of the ol' don't believe muslims because islam says its ok to lie to unbelievers.

I have not used abrogation or taqiyya in my argument for why the Burka is against islam.

You have been attempting to make a theological argument with, shall I say, very limited knowledge of the theology you are arguing.

If my theological argument is wrong, then please explain why it is incorrect. One of the reasons I created this thread is to hear counter theological arguments. But so far no one has provided any and instead many have resorted to ad hominem attacks on me for not being muslim.

[cybercoma]

If my theological argument is wrong, then please explain why it is incorrect.

Michael Hardner spent days discussing with you why your arguments are wrong. You're obviously not interested in this information, so why ask?

[-1=e^ipi]

Michael Hardner spent days discussing with you why your arguments are wrong. You're obviously not interested in this information, so why ask?

Using theological islamic arguments? No

[Peter F]

posted in error

Edited November 16, 2013 by Peter F

[Michael Hardner]

Thank you for your very enlightening contribution. *sarcasm*

I'm sorry but you posted this:

"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?"

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm sorry but you posted this:

"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?"

That was in response to bcsapper claiming that they abhor the idea of telling workers what they can and cannot wear for a job. I then gave some other examples of telling workers what they can and cannot wear and asked bcsapper if he/she abhors hardhats for example. By the lack of response and the responses that add nothing from the conversation, I take it that you guys are fine with requiring hard-hats for some jobs. In that case you cannot abhor the practice of telling workers what they can and cannot wear.

[Michael Hardner]

In that case you cannot abhor the practice of telling workers what they can and cannot wear.

I get it. We starts with the ten mile wide view and them zoom in until we find out what the problem is.

Maybe we can step back even further: can we say that workers generally don't like being told what to do ?

I get what you're trying to do - like a lawyer, you want to question every aspect of the other argument - but it may not be necessary to do that in this case, and may exhaust your discussion partner and others before you can get to your point.

As long as you're proving your argument and moving forward, it's still an argument, but I find that the best you can do on these boards is teach a few people something and get your discussion partner to concede some points.

[Guest]

That was in response to bcsapper claiming that they abhor the idea of telling workers what they can and cannot wear for a job. I then gave some other examples of telling workers what they can and cannot wear and asked bcsapper if he/she abhors hardhats for example. By the lack of response and the responses that add nothing from the conversation, I take it that you guys are fine with requiring hard-hats for some jobs. In that case you cannot abhor the practice of telling workers what they can and cannot wear.

That is a little ridiculous. Some people have to wear steel toed shoes, fire retardant overalls, hearing protection, eye protection, etc. Telling workers what they can and cannot wear depends entirely on the job they are doing.

Where do I agree with you? About jobs, not Islam, I mean. I think people should be able to see the faces of people with whom they are dealing in a serious matter, if they think it's important. I don't think I would, but it's never come up. I can't think of a job of that type that would rule out a headscarf, or any other (supposed or real) religious symbol.

[bleeding heart]

I get what you're trying to do - like a lawyer, you want to question every aspect of the other argument - but it may not be necessary to do that in this case, and may exhaust your discussion partner and others before you can get to your point.

As long as you're proving your argument and moving forward, it's still an argument, but I find that the best you can do on these boards is teach a few people something and get your discussion partner to concede some points.

Good advice, and I've been thinking along just these lines lately, in terms of my own postings.

Edited November 16, 2013 by bleeding heart

[-1=e^ipi]

Where do I agree with you? About jobs, not Islam, I mean. I think people should be able to see the faces of people with whom they are dealing in a serious matter, if they think it's important. I don't think I would, but it's never come up. I can't think of a job of that type that would rule out a headscarf, or any other (supposed or real) religious symbol.

So you would be fine with people wearing hockey masks or V for Vendetta masks to work? And you do not think that for jobs were communication is important (such as teaching) that showing of the face is important because it helps people to communicate non-verbally? What if you are working with deaf people that need to read lips?

Anyway, to the people that are still against putting on ANY restriction on the Burka in the work place, I would like to introduce a new question for you guys to ponder upon and/or answer.

So let me try to summarize some of the arguments that have been made in this thread:

- I introduced the idea that the Burka is against Islam, I provided passages from the Quran supporting my theological position, explained my position, and provided links to moderate muslims that share similar positions.

- The idea that the Burka is against Islam, both makes Islam appear less extreme than some would claim and also weakens the arguments of people that do not think there should be limitations on the Burka in the workplace or in public.

- Some people have argued that there should be no limitations on the Burka because they abhor the practice of telling people what they wear, even for work. I have countered this argument by giving examples of were we already have limitations on what we can and cannot wear (hard hats & laws against nudity); noone in this thread has so far claimed that they are against hard hats or anti-nudity laws.

- Some people have argued that we should not impose limitations upon the Burka because it is a religious requirement. I have of course countered the idea that it is a religious requirement in the original post. But some people have responded that I am non-muslim so my opinion doesn't matter (this is an ad hominem fallacy) and they have argued that it is not possible to determine what is and isn't a requirement of a religion (which I would disagree with and most islamic scholars would also disagree with).

- Let's suppose for a minute that I accept the idea that there should be no limitations upon the Burka because some people claim it is a religious requirement and it is impossible to determine the requirements of a religion. In that case, should people who identify as Pastafarians be able to wear colanders on their heads in the work place without fear of losing their jobs? If you guys argue no because the colander isn't a requirement of Pastafarianism, or you argue no because Pastafarianism 'isn't a real religion' then have you not violated your earlier argument that we cannot determine what is or isn't a religion and what is or isn't a requirement of a religion?

- Ultimately it is unfeasible to make exemptions/accommodations for all clothing items based on what people claim is their religious beliefs. You run into the problem of being unable to define what is or isn't a religion which means you have to allow for people to wear ridiculous clothing items such as the colander on the head. Furthermore, a secular state with separation between religion and state should not be making laws based upon religious beliefs, the law should apply equally to people regardless of their religious beliefs. So the burka shouldn't be treated differently from any other face covering and the hijab should not be treated differently than a bandanna.

Edited November 16, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Guest]

So you would be fine with people wearing hockey masks or V for Vendetta masks to work? And you do not think that for jobs were communication is important (such as teaching) that showing of the face is important because it helps people to communicate non-verbally? What if you are working with deaf people that need to read lips?

I said that "I think people should be able to see the faces of people with whom they are dealing in a serious matter, if they think it's important." I would put teaching in there. I don't think a teacher should do her job in a burka. No problem with a headscarf.

A call centre employee should be allowed to wear a hockey mask or a Guy Fawkes mask if they wish.

[-1=e^ipi]

@ bcsapper, sorry I was a bit confused by your sentence: "I don't think I would, but it's never come up." Could you please explain what you meant by this?

Also, while I wasn't arguing against the hijab in this thread, there are some situations where the hijab can affect someone's performance at work. Here is an example where an employee was fired (or rather no hired) for refusing to take off her hijab because the employer was a hair salon that wanted employees to show their hair to advertise different hair styles:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/02/10/salon_worker_fired_over_headscarf_she_says.html

And I would like to know your position on someone working for say a professional white collar job that usually involves a business suit (say working for the Bank of Canada or working for as an accountant for a large private firm). If the hijab is allowed in cases like this, should the pastafarian colander also be allowed? Do you think businesses or universities should have laws against people wearing hats indoors?

Edited November 16, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Guest]

Yes, I read back, and it's not clear, is it? I meant that I don't think I would be concerned about dealing with a serious issue, at a bank, police station or government office, for example, if the person on the other side of the counter was wearing a face covering. But I never have done, so I can't say for sure.

I would say the hijab is not a concern in the jobs you describe. A skullcap or a non religious headscarf would be okay, too. A colander, like a clown's red nose or a spinning bow tie, probably would not be. I would take the person wearing the hijab seriously when I went to open a bank account at her branch. I could not say the same about colander head.

[-1=e^ipi]

A colander, like a clown's red nose or a spinning bow tie, probably would not be. I would take the person wearing the hijab seriously when I went to open a bank account at her branch. I could not say the same about colander head.

Isn't that discrimination based on religion?

[Guest]

It's discrimination based on silliness.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's discrimination based on silliness.

All religions are silly beliefs in fairy tales and who are you to determine what is and isn't a religion?

[Guest]

All religions are silly beliefs in fairy tales and who are you to determine what is and isn't a religion?

It's part of my religion. Who are you to say I can't.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's part of my religion. Who are you to say I can't.

It's part of your religion that pastafarians shouldn't be able to wear colanders on their heads?

[Guest]

It's part of your religion that pastafarians shouldn't be able to wear colanders on their heads?

If Colander head can start his own religion, so can I.

[-1=e^ipi]

If Colander head can start his own religion, so can I.

So if I make up a religion that says that nobody is allowed to wear burkas, we should now ban burkas?