Talk:Jilbāb: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:51, 3 November 2007

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)[reply]

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.

Also, some say verse 59 is for when women are afraid of being molested. Can someone reference a source to that? I don't remember any credible ones off hand. gren グレン 05:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zora's copyedit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hijab and a Revelation that was not by Mohammad Omar Farooq, PhD. GCarty 08:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! 18.90.5.22 06:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zora's edits

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)[reply]

Anonymous. Can you cite the English source for that hadith. We need to know the translator of it to reference it (at least by name). gren グレン ^? 03:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(when abroad)?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indonesia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==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 :)
+--[[User:MouringReign|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.