Going to go out on a limb and say he's sad about that too.

Afraid to say this is immaterial as well. You don't become any less Muslim just because you might feel it necessary to target other Muslims.

Even if some of the tenants of Al Qaeda appear to be Islamic, the organization only prospered due to US/Pakistan assistance in the 1980s. IMO this is not something you should easily dismiss.

Your entitled to your viewpoint, but Al Qaeda constitutes a very tiny portion of those whom identify as Muslim. Do you watch the Al Queda/offshoot videos? If so you will see what I mean. The goals of Al Qaeda are more or less secular ones, land/money/resources motivated by a false message which was preached by a guy who owned many porn videos.

Al Qaeda is largely ineffective, remember the Arab spring? Al Qaeda missed out on that one. I believe the world membership of Al Qaeda and its offshoots are around 30-40k. Pretty insignificant IMO, for now that is. In Iraq, much of the insurgency comes from baath party loyalists. We only really hear about Al Qaeda/offshoots these days in Syria/Iraq and its for political purposes. Although Pakistan (an ally of the U.S) has of course been accused of harboring terrorists by the USA.

'Appear' to be Islamic? Are you arguing they're not Islamic?

Not relevant.

No one has made the argument that Al Queda doesn't constitute a very tiny portion of those whom identify as Muslim.

I don't doubt that a non-insignificant portion of their goals are secular. However, that doesn't mean that non-insignificant (or even significant) portion of their goals aren't driven by their religious ideologies.

A huge eye roll at you continually bringing this up.

Having porn just proves they are male, it doesn't prove at all that they are not islamic.

Al Qaeda constitutes only a portion of those we would identify as Muslim terrorists/extremists.

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

If you advised members of Hezbollah, Hamas, or Abu Sayyaf that you didn't think they are good Muslims they would likely kill you dead, and that is not an exaggeration.

Here is a more exhaustive list:

Abu Sayyaf, Philippines
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egypt
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Al-Shabaab, Somalia
Al-Qaeda, worldwide
Ansar al-Islam, Iraq
Armed Islamic Group (GIA), Algeria
Caucasus Emirate (IK), Russia
East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), China
Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egypt
Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C), Turkey
Hamas, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen al-Alami, Pakistan
Hezbollah, Lebanon
Islamic Movement of Central Asia, Central Asia
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
Jaish-e-Mohammed, Pakistan and Kashmir
Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Iraq
Jemaah Islamiyah, Indonesia
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Pakistan and Kashmir
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Pakistan
Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Philippines
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Morocco and Europe
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Tawhid and Jihad, Iraq

That is the problem with your "its just a few bad apples" argument. The few bad apples seem to be in almost every corner of the world with very clear islamic branding.

some interesting points made above guys,

I will continue this Al Qaeda discussion in the 'How to prevent Islamophobia thread" just so we can keep the convo in one place,

and btw I dont think either of you are Islamophobic

Women who are forced to make me sadder. Well more angry then sad.


Do you think women (or men) in western countries should be forced to wear clothing covering up parts of their bodies?

Wow, when did he learn to read? Are you sure you're not confusing 'bible' with 'Hungry Caterpillar'?

Under whatever standard one is using for the claim "burqas are oppressive" is it possible to also claim that pants/underwear are oppressive?

Burkas do have a strong political and cultural meaning as well, both as support and branding. To some Persians a burka might be eerily similar to a KKK-robe, symbolizing pro-Arabic Islamist sentiment and the oppression of their own Persian heritage (even though ironically the word itself is originally Persian, though with a different meaning).

Simple analogies don't always tell the whole story. The one who makes them must be aware of this, if not he is dangerously close to lying.

Right. But then this entire conversation is just kind of silly, isn't it? It has basically nothing to do with whether or not one is forced to wear one. That is, the cultural expectation that we wear pants is not significantly different from the cultural expectation that women wear burqas.

If you really want to get upset over burqas, you need to find a different starting point and make the conversation about the symbolic content of the burqa. Pants are not oppressive because pants carry no symbolic meaning. (It's merely a cultural norm.) So you must first argue for the symbolic meaning of the burqa (within the specified culture) before the discussion of oppression can make any sense.

Edit: I believe the same argument can be made successful regarding the BANNING of burqas. To ban a burqa because it falls outside of cultural norms is oppressive and culture-centric. (Blah blah national security blah blah blah...)

No, not really. You are forgetting that even if we are debating the cultural, political and social implications of the Burkah. Islamism (which is indeed a part of Islam, even though very far from all Muslims are Islamists) in its various forms ties these together - it is essentially the ideal that all these contexts must be interpreted theologically.

What you are doing now is defending your underwear analogy as opposed to understanding the phenomena you claim to be debating.

Okay... so your position is what, then? That because the burqa represents a theological ideal within a certain perspective of Islam that the burqa is therefore oppressive to women? If so, that argument has yet to be expressed so far, unless I've missed it. (And I'm not sure I exactly buy it in that form, either.)

You can reject the underwear analogy. That's fine. It has little bearing on what I'm actually trying to bring attention to.

When I read the thread, I'm not getting any of the complexity that you're introducing here. I just see a over-simplified equation: burqa = oppression.

Tame Im glad you brough up cultural differences,

Anyways, I would say you are correct to point out the difference of Islamic clothing between women in S.A and Iran. In Iran( Persian) most women wear the Hijab which covers a portion of their hair. Some men Including the President of Iran covers his hair, and wears long robe type of outfits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_clothing --->men in Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab -->women in iran, see Hijab by country

Of course in other Muslim countries, women buy the latest in designer outfits that you would see even here in the west.

In S.A the most conservative Muslim country in the world... must men cover their hair and wear a traditional robe known as a "thawb" "The thawb is commonly worn by men in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and other Arab countries in the Persian Gulf" Some more traditional type of headdress for men in the Middle east include the Keffiyeh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghutrah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawb


As for women in S.A some most wear the Niqāb /Abayah , of course tho "Beneath the black cloak, Saudi women enjoy fashionable clothing and take great pride in their appearance. They enjoy bright colours and lavish material"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Saudi_Arabia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBUp0OfSURM <----Music of S.A

I will try and flesh out the argument a bit from my perspective. Burkas are just kind of an easy target because they are powerful symbolically.

My problem is not really with burkas as I think the burka is just a symptom of a greater systemic problem.

What kind of culture, be it family or the state, would impose the burka as law?

That is the real deeper question which I am getting at.

Is your example in regards to the pants & underwear combo in tandem or just either? IRT to underwear I would argue that people are free to wear all types of underwear or go commando with no repercussions.

What kind of culture, be it family or the state, would impose that people have to wear pants and underwear?

I'm basically talking about people walking around with nothing to hide. Or you can think of the various stereotypical imagery of African tribes with women who don't cover their breasts. Clothing is superficially culturally normative. So it's not enough to simply argue that "requiring" people (either by law or by cultural expectation) to be clothed in a certain way is obviously or immediately oppressive.

The objection must be something else, otherwise it will be unsuccessful.

Fair enough. However there aren't any places AFAIK that impose laws on pants and underwear. You can effectively wear whatever you want as long as you cover up your bits.

I think part of the problem as well is the specification of gender. If everyone was forced to wear burkas it could be understood a bit better as an entrenched social norm. What seems unjust is if men can wear whatever they want and women must wear a burka. Whether it is imposed by a husband or by the state that doesn't seem fair.

Ok but like I mentioned above it is part of a larger systemic issue with Islamic culture. Part of the problem is what happens when someone pipes up and says "hey I don't want to wear that!". Is everyone ok with that? Is there a forum for reasonable discussion or is it just a backhand to the face?

The problem with oppression is once it is normalized everyone just "knows better" than to ask the question or try and buck the system.

I understand you are dissecting the argument in a vacuum but that doesn't really work IMO.

I guess a good litmus test is to ask yourself if you would appreciate that dress code being imposed on you or your family? (social norms aside)

It should noted no country legally enforces burqas (specifically) to be worn by women, only the hijab is mandatory in a select few countries. In which the men of these countries often dress in a traditional fashion. With exception to Iran where both men and women wear the latest in western style clothing. Even in S.A women are dressing more liberally then you would imagine.


Edit: as a side note , you may be surprised and impressed by this Yemen female politician. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawakel_Karman

Out of curiosity Lemon, do you have any similar thoughts on the hijab? Burka/Nicab play a somewhat functionally different role in that they restrict a common means of human behavior (communicating with facial expressions). But do you have any real reason to think of the hijab as being different from wearing a cross, or heck even of wearing bluejeans and tshirts or suits (ie different cultural dress for different situations)

There are laws against public nudity in most parts of the US. Those are de facto laws imposing pants and underwear (clothing of a specific type intended to cover specific parts). This is functionally equivalent to a burqa.

Men can walk around topless in many situations that women cannot. There is a gender specification. And it's not just about men requiring it (men would probably prefer it to be the other way around). It's about the state requiring it. I think that should strike you as more restrictive than being forced by a husband.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg1AhlnDeFo

Whether I would appreciate it is dependent upon what social norms I already have on the table. So I don't think it's meaningful to set aside social norms.

Stop it already. You must be willfully ignorant.

Iranian women struggle with dress code in heat

The false equivalency is strong itt. It's laughable to compare western nudity laws to laws requiring burquas. Men and women are treated equally with the exception of secondary sex characteristics. So women are treated differently where they are different. Explain to me how a bare female face, ankle or arm are more objectionable than their male counterparts. (Obvious exception: pointy elbows)
The other big difference is the lack of draconian, medieval types of punishment.

For the record, I don't think nudity should be a crime and western laws are bad as well. Just not as bad as Islamic laws in that regard.

For your comparison to hold true advocating public nudity should also involve harsh penalty. Last time I checked public nudity was actually big business and its advocates allowed to speak freely. This is what civilized people should do when they are different. As long as people don't get hurt, they strive to make room for differences and compromise.

However, all this is actually irrelevant. We only need to use your own logic to make the case, which makes everything nice and simple:

In groups where wearing a burka is mandatory (or so harshly enforced culturally as to make no difference), public nudity is also generally treated likewise. Thus by implication they have a bigger scope of oppression. This is your own argument taken to its correct conclusion, instead of stopping halfway to prove yourself right.

My point (again) is that the presentation so far has been lacking in this type of detail and nuance. If you're coming at it from this angle, it's not the actually the burqas that are the problem, it's now a problem of "freedom of speech" or something like that.

I have no problem with this. But this isn't an argument about who is more or less oppressive. Bad behavior is not justified by worse behavior.

Neither is worse behavior justified by bad behavior.

I never claimed that US nudity laws justify a burqa requirement. I'm pointing out that the underlying logic, insofar as the conversation revolves around clothing requirements, is the same. And I'm claiming that this is an oversimplification.