Talk:Hijab

The second paragraph of the article does not belong in the introduction

The second paragraph of the Hijab article is:

"In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry.[citation needed] This means that hijab is not obligatory in front of the father, brothers, grandfathers, uncles or young children or those regarded as mahram.[5] Hijab is similar to the tichel or snood worn by Orthodox Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by some Christian women, such as the mantilla, apostolnik and wimple,[6][7] as well as the dupatta worn by many Hindu and Sikh women.[8][9][10]"

The first sentence is highly debatable, as discussed in the body of the article. Of course, there is no reliable citation for the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph contains details that are discussed in the body and does not belong in the introduction.

Let us agree that the second paragraph of the Hijab article should be deleted entirely.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

I dispute the citation that editor :@Barbardo: added to the sentence

"In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry."

Naturally, Barbardo has not provided a page number. I checked his reference by reading the entire article.

In fact, the article does not support the sentence in question.

Barbardo is engaging in Edit Warring, again, on 10 November 2023‎.

I urge other qualified editors to check Barbardo's citation.

I repeat, in my humble opinion, the second paragraph of the Hijab article should be deleted entirely.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

@QamarBurtuqali, since many readers just read the lede to gain an essential insight, the content about headcoverings in various religious and cultural contexts makes more sense in the top section than in the 'Dress Code' area since that relates to what the Islamic sects have to say about the dress.

The lede's purpose is to provide a concise overview of the topic, distinct from the detailed examination in the 'Dress Code' section, which primarily focuses on Islamic laws.

If you find it appropriate, you may choose to either remove or elaborate on the sentence in the 'Dress Code' section but its WP:Notablilty and WP:Due nature merits its presence in the lede. StarkReport (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the topic is "Hijab" not "Female Head Coverings Around The World,"

the comparison you added is a footnote. A footnote does not belong in the lede.

The information in notability and due in the Dress Code section, but not in the lede.

IMHO.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

@QamarBurtuqali, "Because the topic is "Hijab" not "Female Head Coverings Around The World,"" Kindly note that it is a religious dress, which makes it WP:Noteworthy, as opposed to dresses that serve a functional or fashionable intent.

And, relegating well-sourced information that mentions religious parallelism about the religious subject matter to just a footnote is absurd.

As I have reiterated before, 'you may choose to either remove or elaborate on the sentence in the 'Dress Code' section,' but it belongs in the lede, especially considering we already have the paragraph 'The practice of Islamic veiling varies around the world --------- unofficial pressure to wear or not wear a hijab' in the lede. This is despite the information being extensively covered in the article body and related articles.

Again, note that the Dress code specifically addresses Islamic guidelines regarding the hijab, making the inclusion of this line inappropriate within that context. StarkReport (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the significance of addressing the definition of the dress and its contextual importance in the lede section, it can even be written in the top like:

"In modern usage, hijab (Arabic: حجاب, romanized: ḥijāb, pronounced [ħɪˈdʒaːb]) generally refers to various head coverings conventionally worn by many Muslim women. It is similar to the tichel or snood worn by Orthodox Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by some Christian women, such as the mantilla, apostolnik and wimple, as well as the dupatta worn by many Hindu and Sikh women." StarkReport (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Some wear it, not many

I changed the word “many” to “some” in the opening sentence. The sentence now says: “In modern usage, hijab (Arabic: حجاب, romanized: ḥijāb, pronounced [ħɪˈdʒaːb]) generally refers to various head coverings conventionally worn by some Muslim women.” This is because the source cited clearly states: “Hijab: A head scarf, worn by some Muslim women, which leaves the face exposed.” Dido789 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

== This article does a poor job of highlighting views and reasons of scholars who say Hijab isn't mandatory.

A) In Surah 24 Verse 31: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their Khimars over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons……”

People who claim that the Hijab is mandatory for women are assuming that the Khimar in this case means a “headscarf” when in reality the actual definition of a Khimar is a “cloth/cover”.

There's even evidence from an authentic Hadith that supports this claim.

“Narrated Anas Bin Malik: “Abu Talha said to Umm Sulaim: 'I heard the voice of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sounding weak and I sensed some hunger in it. Do you have anything? She said: 'Yes.' So she got some loaves of wheat bread, then she took out a Khimar of hers, and put the bread in it. Then she put it under my arm, and wrapped my upper body with part of it, and she sent me to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." He said: "So I brought it to him, and I found the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sitting in the Masjid, and there were people with him. So I stood among them, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Has Abu Talhah sent you?' I said: 'Yes.' He said: 'With food?' I said: 'Yes.' So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to those with him: 'Stand up.'" So they left, and I left in front of them, until I came to Abu Talhah, and I told him (that they were coming). Abu Talhah said: 'O Umm Sulaim! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is coming with people, and we don't have anything to feed them.' Umm Sulaim said: 'Allah and His Messenger know best.'" He said: "So Abu Talhah departed until he met up with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Messenger of Allah came, while Abu Talhah was with him, until they entered, when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Come O Umm Sulaim! What do you have?' So she brought him that bread, and he (ﷺ) ordered that it be broken into pieces. Umm Sulaim poured some butter from an oil-skin upon them, then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) recited whatever Allah willed for him to say over it. Then he said: 'Let ten come.' So ten were admitted, and they ate until they were full, and then they left. Then he said: 'Let ten come.' So ten were admitted, and they ate until they were full, and they left. Then he said: 'Let ten come.' So ten were admitted, and they ate until they were full, and there were seventy or eighty men."

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam) Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3630 https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3630”

Logically speaking, if the Khimar only meant a headscarf, why is Umm Sulaim (RA) wrapping bread in a Khimar?

B) So scholars who claim the Hijab is mandatory cite a supposed historical backstory about how this verse was directed towards women who already wore the headscarf. According to them, “the Quran is assuming that every woman at the time of the revelation of these verses was already covering their hair to begin with, hence it contains a de-facto order for all Muslim women to wear a headscarf “. Hence the only way it would make sense is if EVERY SINGLE Muslim women at that time were wearing a headscarf to begin with, because they are the only women this verse is directed towards.

However, it's a well known fact that only the elite and upper class women covered their hair. In fact classical scholars prescribed different awras based on the social status of women, and slave women were prohibited from covering their hair.

So what seems more likely, that the Quran is referencing some obscure 7th century custom that only the elite women at that time practiced, for the purpose of establishing a universal injunction on “covering the head”, OR that the command simply means “cover your chest using a piece of cloth”?

C) Looking at images of Muslim women in the periods of the Islamic Golden age (the era shortly after the death of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH when Islamic civilisation flourished), even when free women wore head scarfs on their head, they had bits and strands of hair showing. If hair is actually something women are obligated to cover, these women would have been careful to make sure there's no hair showing.

This article does a poor job of highlighting the views and reasoning of scholars who believe Hijab isn't mandatory

A) In Surah 24 Verse 31: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their Khimars over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons……”

People who claim that the Hijab is mandatory for women are assuming that the Khimar in this case means a “headscarf” when in reality the actual definition of a Khimar is a “cloth/cover”.

There's even evidence from an authentic Hadith that supports this claim.

“Narrated Anas Bin Malik: “Abu Talha said to Umm Sulaim: 'I heard the voice of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sounding weak and I sensed some hunger in it. Do you have anything? She said: 'Yes.' So she got some loaves of wheat bread, then she took out a Khimar of hers, and put the bread in it. Then she put it under my arm, and wrapped my upper body with part of it, and she sent me to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." He said: "So I brought it to him, and I found the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sitting in the Masjid, and there were people with him. So I stood among them, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Has Abu Talhah sent you?' I said: 'Yes.' He said: 'With food?' I said: 'Yes.' So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to those with him: 'Stand up.'" So they left, and I left in front of them, until I came to Abu Talhah, and I told him (that they were coming). Abu Talhah said: 'O Umm Sulaim! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is coming with people, and we don't have anything to feed them.' Umm Sulaim said: 'Allah and His Messenger know best.'" He said: "So Abu Talhah departed until he met up with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Messenger of Allah came, while Abu Talhah was with him, until they entered, when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Come O Umm Sulaim! What do you have?' So she brought him that bread, and he (ﷺ) ordered that it be broken into pieces. Umm Sulaim poured some butter from an oil-skin upon them, then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) recited whatever Allah willed for him to say over it. Then he said: 'Let ten come.' So ten were admitted, and they ate until they were full, and then they left. Then he said: 'Let ten come.' So ten were admitted, and they ate until they were full, and they left. Then he said: 'Let ten come.' So ten were admitted, and they ate until they were full, and there were seventy or eighty men." Grade: Sahih (Darussalam) Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3630 https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3630”

Logically speaking, if the Khimar only meant a headscarf, why is Umm Sulaim (RA) wrapping bread in a Khimar?

B) So scholars who claim the Hijab is mandatory cite a supposed historical backstory about how this verse was directed towards women who already wore the headscarf. According to them, “the Quran is assuming that every woman at the time of the revelation of these verses was already covering their hair to begin with, hence it contains a de-facto order for all Muslim women to wear a headscarf “. Hence the only way it would make sense is if EVERY SINGLE Muslim women at that time were wearing a headscarf to begin with, because they are the only women this verse is directed towards. However, it's a well known fact that only the elite and upper class women covered their hair. In fact classical scholars prescribed different awras based on the social status of women, and slave women were prohibited from covering their hair. So what seems more likely, that the Quran is referencing some obscure 7th century custom that only the elite women at that time practiced, for the purpose of establishing a universal injunction on “covering the head”, OR that the command simply means “cover your chest using a piece of cloth”?

C) Looking at images of Muslim women in the periods of the Islamic Golden age (the era shortly after the death of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH when Islamic civilisation flourished), even when free women wore head scarfs on their head, they had bits and strands of hair showing. If hair is actually something women are obligated to cover, these women would have been careful to make sure there's no hair showing. ChickenSoup54 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Map around the world

You should change the map of Saudi arabia and Afghanistan; Saudi should be yellow or Orange that it is widespread but no longer mandatory by law and Afghanistan should be red like Iran because it is now mandatory since the Taliban takeover in 2021 and should also be stated they require the Niqab/ Burqa RickyBlair668 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Harassment

@StarkReport You removed a reference to journal "Violence Against Women" and in revert mention WP:PARTISAN. I agree that the other reverted reference from "womensmediacenter.com" might not meet WP:Reliable sources. But, I believe returning the journal "Violence Against Women" after rephrasing the sentence is not WP:PARTISAN, do you agree?

Furthermore you claimed in your revert that Hijab article scope "not specific to harassment or controversies", yet the article contains other places mentioning harassment. Section Qur'an: "as a recommendation to meet current needs such as sexual harassment in Medina." And subsection Modern history: "It is seen as a way to avoid harassment and unwanted sexual advances in public". Discussing harassment seems to be within the scope of this article, if not which article do you believe is more relevant for discussing harassment and hijab? HudecEmil (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @HudecEmil, The "Violence Against Women" journal reference seems reliable, but the claim and its framing skews the scope of this article towards controversial POV rather than a neutral discussion of hijab and hence, it seems to be rather WP:UNDUE.

While harassment is briefly mentioned in passing within proper historical context, this article is not focused on harassment, which is better suited for articles on gender dynamics or harassment such as the article "Violence against women" where your addition might fit in the "Dress" section. One other article could use your detail is "Sexual harassment" in the "Post-complaint retaliation and backlash" section. Also, if your source is primarily specific to one country, such as Jordan, then an article focused on that country, like "Women in Jordan" could possibly include this info concisely only in a contextually relevant paragraph. StarkReport (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Added to section "Unofficial pressure to wear hijab" which had only older examples. HudecEmil (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)