From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hijab in Saudi Arabia[edit]

since there is no low forcing women to cover their hair (wear hijab) in Saudi Arabia I am gonna remove " wearing hijab in public has been required by law in Iran, Saudi Arabia " from the intro. Also I am from Saudi Arabia and i have seen women without head scarf. and here "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requires Muslim women to cover their hair " its doesnt say in the source women have to wear hijab. --Mojackjutaily (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Is there a source which clarifies this? Edaham (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mojackjutaily:The current source says this:
Saudi Arabia is one of the only Muslim-majority countries that legally imposes a dress code (Iran is another). Women, foreign and local, must wear an abaya (a few get away with long coats) in public places. Muslim—often equated with Saudi—women are said to have to wear a headscarf; foreigners needn’t. The face need not be covered
and this
COMMENTATORS, mainly non-Saudis, made a hullabaloo when Michelle Obama, America’s first lady, turned up in Saudi Arabia on January 27th in colourful, loose-fitting clothing and no headscarf. The oil-rich kingdom is known for its women being swathed in long, black cloaks known as abayas, usually paired with the hijab (headscarf) or niqab (which leaves a slit for the eyes), or a burqa (which covers the body from head to toe, with a mesh for the eyes)
Perhaps rather than remove the text, we can clarify what regulations Saudi does have and whether or not they are strictly enforced or just public guidelines. This article is about the hijab, but I see no reason not to clarify the present public codes in countries where these are worn, despite the fact the law may not specifically state that the garment be a hijab. What do you think? Thank you for bringing this discussion to the talk page after having been reverted. Edaham (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
well, the problem in KSA is that there is no clear law or roles even the constitution is a mess. any way @Edaham: i agree with you, we should explain that wearing Abaya is a public guidelines,
usually non Muslim wear it But recently the arrival of Melania and Ivanka Trump without headscarves and Abaya change the custom. Even before, a lot of women in Saudia do not wear Hijab even if she is a Muslim like girls from Syria and Lebanon, and the public are OK with it . Wearing Abaya in the other hand is kind of law but not headscarf or hijab, I am sorry about my English i hope you can understand me. --Mojackjutaily (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
your English is perfectly understandable. Thanks for the clarification. I think the source here explains the situation quite well. If you have no objection I will use this source and write a version to see if it accurately reflects the current situation. If you can find a text containing an actual law or statute from a local text, we could source that too for verification. Would you be able to find something like that? Edaham (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Edaham: i can find something in Arabic would you accept it --Mojackjutaily (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
i Found something here in English i hope it is useful --Mojackjutaily (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That's useful yes - also useful would be travel advice for those applying for a visa from any consulate pages as this would verify the different requirements if any for foreigners. Let me do a rewrite and continue the discussion a bit later. In transit at the moment. Edaham (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this last source (a blog) qualifies as a reliable source. The Economist is a RS (an academic one would be better), but it's phrasing ("are said to have to") is notably wishy-washy. I would guess the reason is that Saudi law isn't codified (as Mojackjutaily points out), so the author just doesn't know for sure. There seems to be a difference between Saudi Arabia, where it's legally required only for Muslims (per uncodified fiqh), and Iran, where it's required for all women (per what seems to be the standard reading of article 102 of the penal code). If you can provide Arabic sources that meet WP:RS criteria, Mojackjutaily, I can help with translation. If we are comfortable making that generalization, we could simply change the lead to read "Saudi Arabia (for Muslims)" Eperoton (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC):
ok - holding off editing while sources are reviewed. Edaham (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
foreign travel advice could be included, as could requirements for dress code in government buildings.
Edaham (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The sources would be reliable enough, but they don't seem to tell us quite what we need. The travel advice doesn't specify whether the dress code is part of laws or customs (though it does seem to imply that hijab is strictly enforced for everyone). The Saudi bylaw seems to concern specifically the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, which is not something that we would mention in the lead. Eperoton (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. This discussion does not concern something which belongs in the lede, but a section on enforcement by region. Edaham (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham: @Eperoton: i could not find source telling us wearing hijab is laws or its not, but here is saying (Wearing a veil is not required for non-Saudi, non-Muslim women,), Here (The headscarf is however optional for foreign women), and this site talked about Saudi female minister ( appeared in the media, along with other Saudi women, without covering her face and hair on several occasions) and in alarabiya The article specifically said (It is common for Western women in Saudi Arabia to wear abaya and do not cover their hair.) --Mojackjutaily (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mojackjutaily. I think we now have multiple RSs (Economist, al-Watan via Al-Arabiya) stating that a headscarf is required only for Muslim women. It's questionable whether expat guide websites qualify as RSs, but I think in this context they can be used for corroboration. The UK travel advice site states that visitors "should" wear a headscarf, and not explicitly that it's required. The text in the body of the article seems to be in line with this, so I think we just need to add a parenthetical in the lead. Eperoton (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC) @Eperoton: What about this? Hijab is not enforced by law if you been saudi lots of girls don't veil especially in cities like jeddah and riyadh but in some areas the niqab is more of a social obligation so it really depends on where you live in saudi. Arsi786 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Arsi786

@Arsi786: Thanks for providing this source, which seems to be a reputable news outlet. It states two things. The author of the article writes "Saudi Arabia requires women to wear the black robe and hijab by law." Then MBS is quoted as saying something different. By WP:NPOV, we need to reflect both these statements. If we find RSs that describe the legal and social situation in more detail, especially up-to-date sources, that would be great. Unfortunately, we can't use personal experiences due to our policy against original research. Eperoton (talk)

How wonderful Aaminah moses (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Wearing a hijab" or "wearing hijab"?[edit]

Which is grammatically correct? My understanding is that hijab is a dress code rather than a specific garment, so that would make it "wearing hijab", but I could be wrong. Asking because of the Dorsa Derakhshani article, which has been changed from "wearing hijab" to "wearing a hijab". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In pre-Islamic Arabia, a hijab was a partition, curtain, etc and after the rise of Islam it came to be used for the Islamic dress code as well. In modern usage the word is being used to describe a khimar, or headscarf. Considering Arabic academics and Islamic scholars generally consider the classical Arabic (fusha al-qadeem or other terms) to be more correct and true to the original meaning, one could say that "wearing hijab" is more academically correct. In English speech and writing, however, lay people who haven't studied the Arabic language and Islamic studies may just call a headscarf a hijab. As we know, spoken language evolves over time, and Arabic has rapidly changed in the past few centuries, so this "error" is essentially becoming normal usage. I hope that helps! :) See Lane's Lexicon on if you want to read more in English (click the top link to Arabic Almanac) and search the two root words (خمر and حجب). If you can read Arabic Lisaan al-Arab is a good start. DivineReality (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Compulsory veiling as a separate article?[edit]

I recently re-created an article titled "Compulsory veiling" (that had been re-directed to this Hijab article back in 2005), but it was re-directed once again to this Hijab page. I think there has been a lot new developments since 2005, particularly amongst feminist groups and feminist issues, to warrant "Compulsory veiling" its own article. What does everyone else think? As someone who's read a lot on Women's rights, I find this an important topic that deserves its own article. Barca (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

BarcrMac, Do you have a draft or something to give us an idea of what exactly would go in the article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia, Thank you for getting in touch. I did have an original stub submission, which was later merged into this article. It was just a start point, but if accepted, I would have helped to develop it. What do you think? Would this merit an article of its own? Barca (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Normally, content is developed within a section of the more general article until its excessive length motivates spinning it off into a separate article. See WP:SPINOFF. Eperoton (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, compulsory veiling sounds a bit like a WP:POVFORK. Will it also include compulsory removal of veils (as in France and other places)? If so, it should be called "Compulsory female dress codes" or something like that.VR talk 16:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ban of niqab is not the same as ban of hijab[edit]

Ban on niqab belong in the article on niqab and burqa, not here.VR talk 16:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, we want to keep the details in other more specific articles, but face veils are a type of hijab, so a summary of bans is due here. Eperoton (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
How are face veils a type of hijab? A hijab doesn't cover the face. Face veils do. The definition of hijab in English refers specifically to the headcovering.VR talk 07:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
You're right, the word often has this meaning in common English usage. There's also a broader usage that includes face veiling, which we need to reflect here since it's prominent in academic sources, for example Oxford Dictionary of Islam (Hijab- Traditional Muslim women's head, face, or body covering...) and Elizabeth Bucar's The Islamic Veil: A Beginner's Guide ("hijab" today is used to refer to the Islamic veil, or even more generally to any form of women's Islamic dress). This broader usage reflects Arabic and English-language Islamic contexts, including the sources that hold face veiling to be obligatory. For example, in a translation of Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen's Woman's Hijab one finds: The legal definition of hijab, for a woman, is that which screens the parts of her which must not be displayed [...] The most important and the first of which is the face.... Eperoton (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

POV issues with Empowerment[edit]

Empowerment feels a bit biased. There are alot of claims made that should probably be preceded by some kind of "Women's rights activist so-so says that". For example:

Woman whom find discomfort in men looking at their attributes don’t face such predicament when wearing the hijab.

This is true according to who? Wheres the data? (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the whole section. There was very little of value. The sources were bad and there was way too much original research. JordiGH (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)