Talk:Hijab
 | Fashion B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Islam B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hijab article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
| A summary of this article appears in Women and Islam. |
POV
The entire article, except for one short paragraph at the end, is slanted towards defending the hijab. No mention is made of the oppression of women. --24.139.46.213 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
yes it should be fair not favor one side wikipedia shows facts info not there opppions it should be unbais i don't think the hijab does oppression woman unlike the burqa or veil but should make it favour one side should state information etc.. and live oppions out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Infusion of True Reality
4 pictures from the last 50 years of Cairo University Graduates.
Notice anything?
The Hijab, as currently constructed and worn is NEW. It's an Islamist Political statement as the Mao suit was for China and MaoISTS. (which could of course then become fashionable to others.)
Amir Taheri:
"...Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne'a and picheh, among others.
All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.)...."
-
All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.
That claim is totally False. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.
This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi'ite community.."
[..........]
Muslim women could easily check the FRAUDULENT nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will Not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam.
This FAKE Islamic hijab is nothing but a Political Prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization.
It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war.
The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a "good Muslim" without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab.
[...........]
http://www.headscarf.net/this%20is%20not%20islam.htm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
infusion of reality
This needs an infusion of reality :D.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 04:24, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
See now, that's the problem. (Commenting on recent edits.) I haven't been to this page for a little bit (day job gets in the way) and now it's more out of control. Saying that Hijab is a modern word is just plain wrong. And leads to the even more fundamental inaccuracies. The orginal meaning of "Hijab" is a the concept whose discussion starts in the second sentence. The first sentence is just plain ill-informed. The reason for that ill-information is that modern Muslims in the Western world, often converts or second generation Muslims, have made so much noise about one of their icons--the head-scarf, a modernised and Westernized version of the Arab "Djellaba" and called it "hijab" so often that even Muslims now use the word for that headscarf. While common, this is a very troubling development.
Now. The above para is my POV. Next I have to figure out how to separate the facts from my opinion and edit the article accordingly.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
You are right iFaqeer. I hope you did not see my adding of the "types of Hijab" table (which the more I look at, the more I find it to be ugly) as trying to accentuate merely the physical aspects of hijab. In fact, the outfit is merely as smaller part of the whole attitude the word should encompass. You are correct in saying this is what westerners notice and which is probably why the article heads in that direction. It is also easier to address the physical since the other virtues associated with hijab are so intertwined with a whole interpretation of the Qur'an. In an effort to combat people merely thinking of it as a physical attribute I am going to move the table I added to a page called "hijab related garments, or some other name and link to it from the "How do people wear hijab?" section. I realized I probably helped to make it seem more physical (despite not meaning to) and therefore must remedy that. -gren
Hah, I had only read the one section about "how do we wear Hijab" when I added my table... I didn't expect that the whole article was devoted to that. -gren
- Thank you for being so reasonable!! :D. That's the beauty of the Wikipedia; working together makes for great entries. And often what someone else is doing is reminding one of something one already knows—or wants to convey but doesn't require figure out how. I know it happens to me a lot of times.
- One small quibble, though. Or maybe put this way: I wasn't even getting into the physical versus the more spiritual aspects of the concept. I was hung up on how the physical aspect is currently misunderstood—and/or misapplied. And not just by westerners, either. Sometimes I feel some parts of the Muslim community manipulate the issue to forward their own agenda.
- I see that what you are saying is an even better way of thinking of it. And I see you have removed the first sentence. Good work. I think I will add a heading to some of the intro. And a new first sentence or explanation at the top.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:05, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Edits by 62.252.128.25
- I removed "Additionally, crimes against women in general are no less common in the Islamic world" because it contradicts what is said earlier in the paragraph "Muslims often claim that Islamic countries have lower levels of sex crimes (although this remains unproven)". If the latter is unproven, so is the former.
- "legal codes in many Muslim countries specifically allow for the beating and punishment of women, allow spousal rape, deny women divorce rights and treat them as second-class citizens." These seem like problems with governments, not hijab itself, hence off-topic.
- "Critics point to family and community pressure on Western Muslim women as undermining the ideal of hijab as personal choice. Some feminists have argued that the veiling of women to bring them respect undermines the sexual and personal freedoms of all women, regardless of religion or culture." I don't particularly see the merit of this argument as the same thing can be said about a Christian's swimsuit at a beach. In that case family and community pressure is not particularly a Muslim phenomenon.
The original is "Jalaabib" ("Jilbabs") NOT CLOAK
Actually... the word cloak is a translation! The original Arabic word is Jilbab in the hadith and Jalaabib (jilbabs) in the verse from the Qur'an.
Read the verse for yourself means: read the ARABIC verse for yourself... not Yusuf Ali's translation!
Leave it in the original and let people decide for themselves what it means!
The verse says Believing women (or women of the believers)... it doesnt say merely "believers"
OK guys... the verse... as clearly as it says jalaabib, also very clearly states "believing women" or "women of the believers" (same thing!)... why does someone insist on changing it back to just "believers"... that doesnt make ANY sense!
Are you trying to imply that the injunction is not specific to believing women? Read the verse again...
Blair Says Muslim Veil Is a ‘Mark of Separation’
LONDON, Oct. 17 — Prime Minister Tony Blair today joined a passionate and increasingly corrosive debate over the use of the Islamic full-face veil by some British Muslim women, calling it a “mark of separation.”
Do Christian nuns and Muslim women cover their head for the same reasons?
Was there any sort of past commonality/belief, which said that women should be covered? Or is it just a coincidence that Catholic nuns cover up as well? CaribDigita (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted the Following
"Dressing modestly, therefore, is a trait of the believing men and women. The minimum requirements for a woman's dress is to lengthen her garment (33:59) and to cover her chest. Tyrannical Arab traditions have given a false impression that a woman must be covered from head to toe; such is not a Quranic or Islamic dress." Akohler Talk @ 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- For my part, I have deleted an unsourced statement about there being some sort of legal requirement in Saudi Arabia for women to be covered in a certain way, etc. If that were the case, there were an awful lot of women breaking the law during my time there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by At612 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
no At612 its ture hijab has to be worn they buy law it might be a new law but its is a requirement sorry to say they don't support reilgons right just like france doesn't
other elements of hijab
why is there a separate section that does not logically follow that contains an alternate translation to the one provided above? I vote for delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.13.109 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Confusion: hijab vs. burqa
This article fails to establish an equivalence between the subject ("hijab") and "burqa" before presenting...
- In more secular Muslim nations, such as Turkey or Tunisia, many women are choosing to wear the Hijab, Burqa, Niqab, etc. as an act of defiance against the secularization of society, but also because of the widespread growth of the Islamic revival in those areas[citation needed].
...which suggests that "hijab", "burqa", and "nigab" are the same thing. (In the original quote, emphasis is mine.) Are they the same thing? This article suggests so, yet hijab and burqa have separate Wikipedia articles. niqab does not have an Wikipedia article. I hope this comment is helpful. 75.45.119.51 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- They're not the same thing. Wikilinking the three would do the job I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Picture?
...why do I have to scroll through half the article to see what this thing looks like?
J.M. Archer (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's not a single thing, but sevaral. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I find it rather amusing, then, that this sentence seems to refer primarily to a single type of head covering.
- "A hijab or ḥijāb (حجاب, pronounced [ħiˈdʒæːb]), as commonly understood in the English-speaking world, is the type of head covering traditionally worn by Muslim women, but can also refer to modest Muslim styles of dress in general."