|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 User Grenavitar is defacing the article
- 2 The Real Jilbab
- 3 Need for ironic template
- 4 What is jilbāb?
- 5 Need non-commercial picture
- 6 Zora's copyedit
- 7 Clicked revert as MINOR -- finger slip
- 8 Zora's edits
- 9 (when abroad)?
- 10 Too much emphasis placed in Guindi
- 11 Indonesia
- 12 Contradiction in number
(cur) (last) 10:05, 12 December 2007 188.8.131.52 (Talk) (10,260 bytes) (Your edit doesn't make sense. It IS neutral. You even pulled out a hadith from the same book as the original, which is more relevant to the word Jilbab. Explain or I will report you if you do it again) (undo) (cur) (last) 04:26, 11 December 2007 Grenavitar (Talk | contribs) (7,317 bytes) (rv -- not the place to use non-neutral language and partisan discussion about translations...) (undo)
Someone stop him from doing it again.
Yusuf Ali's translation has its own page which you can simply link to. The one I quoted a translation from, does not. Maybe other people feel any information is valid as long as you cite something, anything, but I believe the work being cited should have some explanation so people don't simply make up sources. So I had to give background on the translation from which I was quoting, and showing why it deserves mention and priority over Yusuf Ali's. Because it's a translation following hundreds of years of commentaries on the Qur'an whereas Yusuf Ali's is a new one in the last century and Yusuf Ali is not related in any way to traditional Islamic scholarship. Not only do those commentaries and that translation represent the traditional Sunni view, the majority of Sunnis in the world (this is common knowledge, ask a professor in a University if you don't know anything about the subject, don't be shy) follow the traditional Sunni path, which is to say, they are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali sub-sects of Sunnis. That translation and those commentaries represent those people, which make up over 90% of Muslims in the world today. These are all facts. I am not sure if Grenavitar is familiar with that term.
If someone would be so kind as to make a page for "Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur'an in the English Language by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Dr. Muhammad Taqiuddin Al-Hilali" and include that paragraph (using more neutral words than "reknown" or "prominent" if you can find any in the English language), I would be grateful. Than you can simply have the name of the translation link to the book's page and then leave the quote in.
There is also no reason whatsoever to remove the added quote from Sahih Bukhari and leave the old one. In fact, the new one explains the meaning of the verse in question, and the word jilbab whereas the one that Grenavitar left on the page doesn't do anything except mention jilbab in passing.
Narrated Umm Atiyya: We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and screened women to the religious gatherings and invocation of the Muslims on the two Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from the musalla. A woman asked, "O Messenger of Allah! What about one who does not have a jilbab?". He said, "Let her borrow the jilbab of her companion". (Sahih Bukhari, Book 8, #347)
Narrated Safiyah bint Shaibah: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their jalabib over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number #282)
From the same book, website, etc. as the first one. Now, reading both of them, it becomes clear one is more relevant than the other. Guess which one it is? Yep, the new one. Now who in their right mind would remove it? Besides Grenavitar that is?
I think this user has an agenda and should at least be warned.
The Real Jilbab
Every original translation, as well as all the Hadiths that form the basis for all schools of law within Islam, both Sunni and Shi'a (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Shi'a's Jafari) which cite the Caliphs and Companions of Muhammad as all stating explicitly that Jilbab covers the outer garments, including the face, leaving the eyes open. I will edit the article and cite the sources for these schools which form the Islamic law/ruling (which cannot be changed by scholars who come after them, and this has been endorsed by the majority of sunni and shi'ite scholars... those who start to change the meanings or interpretations on issues like this, while still good sources for 'Islamic' thought, do not represent Sunnis or Shi'as which together make the overwhelming majority of all Muslims today and thus should be represented).
The Muslim Brotherhood for example, which are cited heavily here, are not Sunni scholars. They're a spin-off school of thought whose foundations are outside of all Sunni schools of law but they loosely adhere and pay lip-service to the four Imams. They cannot be said to represent the beliefs of Sunnis.
As for the sarcastic comments below, this article is targeted towards a secular audience. It's neither for Muslims specifically, nor by Muslims specifically. Whatever standards are used for Encyclopedias of this sort, and Wikipedia especially, should be followed obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Need for ironic template
I found this page by hitting random edit and I just think that it's funny how this article has a picture of a muslim woman which some muslims think is forbidden in of itself. I think the correct course of action is for a non-commerical photograph of a muslim man crossdresser wearing the jiljab just so that we can be culturally sensitive :)
--MouringReign 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What is jilbāb?
To most jilbāb is that garment linked to in the pictures (maybe not even the third one). However, there is a group (mostly of liberals) who don't take jilbāb (jalabib- as used in the Qur'an at least) to be what the modern idea of jilbāb is. That is to say, there are claims that jalabib is referring to a type of outergarment which is modest but is more of a concept, not necessarily what we think of it as today. Has anyone else read something about this? I don't think I explained it well so help would be appreciated.
Need non-commercial picture
The article was illustrated with pictures from a company that sells jilbabs. I removed those pictures. I hope other editors can supply some public domain or open licence pictures. Zora 01:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Completely fine. I linked to those image just as examples and made sure I didn't link to pages that sold products. However, that's probably abusive to bandwidth and unwise. In other news, I found a picture under a free license on flickr. Not the best representation but pretty decent. gren グレン ? 20:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The picture showing the Medina Quarter needs to be replaced. For a picture that is suppose to show a Jilbab, it is a great picture of the local architecture.[User: retrograde62]December 16 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I had a few questions. Firstly, I tried in my version to define jilbab as a garment outside of which religion wears it. I think it's only a small difference but it should be represented as it is the garment and that it is worn by Muslim women. Not that it is the garment worn by Muslim women. Since, is it a style only worn by Muslims? Predominantly, of course. Also, should any debate about whether or not jilbab is necessary go on the hijab page do you think? Or should there be discussion of it here--since you removed the little bit of discussion I had about it on the page. Thanks. gren グレン ? 20:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that the problem we're having here is that "jilbab" is a retcon. That is, the Qur'an says that women should cover themselves with their "jilbabs" and it isn't at all clear what that implies. So you get various companies, sheikhs, etc. trying to present THEIR version of modest dress as the real true authentic jilbab.
I do not recall having run across the term "jilbab" in any discussion of hijab/Middle Eastern costume history BEFORE the modern period. I have the strong impression that the jilbab, as you see it worn by Islamist Muslimas, is a modern innovation masquerading as an ancient garment. I will have to do some research to establish this, however. Need a word frequency analysis or some such.
So you have the problem of what the term meant in the 7th century, and also of surveying the current styles in jilbab.
Let's see -- consulting Veil: Modesty, Privacy, and Resistance, Fadwa El Guindi, Berg, 1999.
- Beginning in Egypt, in the Arabic-speaking region, the subject of the hijab was revived in the 1970s in the context of an emergent Islamic consciousness and movement that spread steadily throughout the Islamic East (El Guindi 1980, 1981a, b, c, 1982a, b, c, d, 1983, 1984, 1985a, 1986a, 1987, 1995b, 1996a). The Qur'anic dress terms khimar and jilbab, and the notion of irtmcderate excess (tabarruj), and a contrasting opposition tahajjub/sufur, all reappeared as a revived contemporary vocabulary dominating daily discourse among the youth in the movement and around the nation (Hamza 1981; Sidque 1975).
- In the contemporary revival, the dress code was translated this way: men and women wear full-length gallabiyyas (jilbab in standard Arabic), loosefitting to conceal body contours, in solid austere colors made out of opaque fabric. They lower their gaze in cross-sex public interaction, and refrain from body or dress decoration or colors that draw attention to their bodies. The dress cede for men consists of sandals, baggy trousers with loose-top shirts in off- “white, or alternatively (and preferred) a long loose white gallabiyya. They grow a lihya (a full beard trim-tied short), with an optional mustache. Hair is to be kept shoulder-length. (This last feature has not been sustained and was eventually dropped.) The general behavior code of austerity and restraint has support in Qur'anic segments that repeatedly stress the undesirability of arrogance and exhibitionist demeanor.
- In women's dress there is a gradation: A muhajjaba (a woman wearing hi jab) wore al-jilbab - an unfitted, long-sleeved, ankle-length gown in austere solid colors and thick opaque fabric - and al-khimar, a headcover that covers the hair and extends low to the forehead, comes under the chin to conceal the neck, and falls down over the chest and back. The common colors used by women during the first decade of the movement were beige, brown, navy, deep wine, white and black (see Figure 22 ). This dress is worn while engaging fully in worldly affairs in public social space in which not only is her gender accepted, but also her sexual identity. Austere dress form and behavior are therefore not acconpanied by withdrawal, seclusion, or segregation.
- The voluntary informal dress code extends beyond clothing to a general demeanor characterized by serious behavior and an austere manner, an ideal applied to both sexes. A munaqqabah (a woman wearing the niqab or face veil) more conservatively adds al-niqab, which covers the entire face except for the eye slits; at the most extreme, she would also wear gloves and opaque socks to cover her hands and feet. This trend 141 has been spreading throughout the Arab world, particularly among university students. Chatty (1997) describes a similar pattern occurring in southeastern Arabia. Gradually, this Islamic dress code became standardized, its adherents continued to grow in number, and their presence in the midst of the urban public landscape became routinized (see Wallace 1956 on phases in Revitalization Movements crossculturally).
(pages 143-144) You probably have the book at your university library. It's not a great book, but it's the only one I've manage to read so far. Sheesh, I'm so far BEHIND in my reading.
El Guindi seems to be suggesting that the "jilbab" is a 1970s Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood phenomenon. Hope this helps. Zora 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. I checked and we do have it. On what basis do the revivalist movements claim jalabib in the Qur'an = modern jilbab? There had to be some reasoning and I don't really know enough to take or dismiss either argument. It would be good to trace it through history. Usage of the term and analysis of that verse. Just not sure how to go about that. gren グレン ? 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the modern jilbab had its origins in Istanbul in the early 20th century. According to Ruth Roded, a social historian at the Hebrew University of Israel:
- At the beginning of the twentieth century, some Muslim women began to copy Western dress, wearing short skirts and form-fitting bodices instead of the earlier loose garments. It was apparently the women of Istanbul who adopted the European dust coat, which covered the ankles and had long sleeves, for outdoor wear. The head was covered by a scarf. This apparel was advocated by a prominent Egyptian feminist in one of the earliest public lectures for Middle Eastern women in 1909. Since that time, some Muslim women have continued to copy the changing Western fashions; in reaction, the cry was raised for a return to more modest dress. The dust coat adopted by some neo-Islamic circles as a return to tradition was a Western-inspired innovation almost a hundred years ago.
GCarty 12:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds kinda doubtful to me. From what I've seen of jilbabs, the cut isn't European, it's Egyptian, and based on the Egyptian galabia. I'm familiar with galabia, because I sew them for myself :) Do you have a cite for the Roded quote? Zora 12:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Clicked revert as MINOR -- finger slip
I was clicking fast and accidentally labeled a revert as "minor". Sorry.
Anon, this article is not the place to lobby for your views on hijab, or to assert that all Muslims share them. I did, however, remove the sentence re controversy that you removed, since I think that the preceding sentences do indicate that there is controversy. Zora 23:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Muhaajabah reference was there long before... leave it please.
- If you're mentioning Quran... you should mention hadith also. No propogating of views, just bringing in another objective source (sahih bukhari).
- 3rdly, walk into ANY US mosque. You will find ALL the women wearing hijab and jilbab when praying... they might be too afraid to wear it outside... but they follow the rules of Islam that they believe in when they pray. If that does not indicate an overwhelming majority, then I don't know what does! 18.104.22.168 06:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at the reference -- it's polemic and expresses a marginal view. All by itself, it's a bad reference. I need to add material from El Guindi and cite her book. Zora 10:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I re-added the references... and I agree that it's a bad reference... but, legally... it's still a reference. I have no problem with it being removed on a rewrite, but I used it to get the Qur'an quote and so we need to keep it until this is written with different sources. I just added a note about the source not being neutral. It's just that we need to keep it because it was used... else it's plagiarism.
- About anon and wearing khimar/jilbab in mosques. Most Muslim girls I know believe it's respect to God to wear the khimar while praying but don't find it necessary outside of prayer. So, I'm not sure just because people wear it in mosques means they think it's necessary everywhere. gren グレン ? 14:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Good job, as usual. Just two things. I moved the link back into references. Feel free to get rid of or re-reference anything from my original work. If you can do that (or it's common knowledge) then feel free to remove the link. But as of now it's still technically a reference. Picky? yes, but it's correct. Secondly, I added your "jalabib" in braces since it wasn't part of the Yusuf Ali quote. I just thought of this now, but if you want you can remove outer garments and put jalabib in brackets replacing it. That's perfectly proper, but since the quote has been modified it needs to be known. I see you decided to keep the hadith reference.
- In other news, I removed the link since specific references to it are no longer in the article. I also did the bracket thing. So, there we go. gren グレン ? 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The Quran passage is translated in part as
- over their persons (when abroad)
Is the insert "(when abroad)" in the original or was that added by the translator? AxelBoldt 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't read Arabic (yet) but I think that the parens indicate a translator's "clarification". However, there could be something in the rest of the sentence that by implication makes it clear that these rules only apply in public. Could we have an Arabic-speaker please? Zora 05:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Too much emphasis placed in Guindi
This article places undue weight WP:undue weight to Guindi's theory, and ignores classical references to Jilbab throughout the history of Islam, and it's description in ancient Arabic dictionaries. e.g. al-Lisan al-Arab . I will provide in time. Sentences like "it was not known before the 70's egypt" are absurd! all of the following are types of Jilbab in their local variations: Abaya, Kaftan, chador, Djellaba, Jellabiya, dishdasha, burqa. Many of the words Guidni lists are actually not in reference to Jilbabs, but also refer to the various forms of Khimar i.e. Yashmak. The Quran mentions explicitly only two garments for women Jilbab and Khimar, not hijab, or all the others, they are just coined words, or terms for variations of the two forms in the quran. Aaliyah Stevens 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Indonesians use jilbab instead of hijab? Is it a local variation or does it have something to do with Indonesian history? I am currently there and very few people understand what I mean if I say hijab. Thanks in advance.Crisco 1492 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that Southeast Asians used the word tudung for hijab – or maybe that's just a Malaysian thing... --GCarty 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Contradiction in number
The first sentence of the article states that jilbāb "is the plural of the word jilaabah," whereas the following "Qur'an and Hadith" section begins, "The plural of jilbāb, jalabib, is...." While I realize that there are important distinctions between qur'anic and other varieties of the Arabic language that may come into play here, the reasons for this seeming contradiction should either be briefly explicated here, or otherwise the correct word(s) should be used consistently throughout the article. Sadly, I don't know enough of the language to contribute more than this call-out. Anyone care to clear this up? /Ninly (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)