Talk:Hijab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hijab article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The term 'hijab' means 'veil' or 'curtain' or else similar. The Quran says only women shall 'cover their breasts' it says nothing about covering the head or face - such was worn in old cultures before the Prophet(saw) and is a tradition in the middle east also worn by some men in the sand, and as such is mentioned in the Hadiths, but has nothing to do with Islam at all - Some Muslims are misguided to follow the Hadiths which have been interpreted by man, and should follow the Quran where their is inconsistency as Allah knows best and his words make no mention of covering head or face.

24:31

Contents 1 Featured Picture 2 Balance 3 Err 4 infusion of reality 5 Rewrite 6 Edits by 62.252.128.25 7 Picture 8 Hijab in the Qur'an 9 Needs a Source 10 Translation request 11 Content under History 12 Major revision 13 Niqab is NOT Required, From the Book "Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah" by Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee 14 Evidences for Jilbaab 15 Examining the Daleels (Evidences) for Niqaab 16 Why wear niqaab? 17 What is above 18 One More Point 19 What is a jilbab? 20 The original is "Jalaabib" ("Jilbabs") NOT CLOAK 21 The verse says Believing women (or women of the believers)... it doesnt say merely "believers" 22 "Lisaan ul-Arab" by Ibn Mandhoor (~1200 CE) 23 Number of Muslim women who support headscarf ban??? 24 Vandal 25 MOU, what term do you want? 26 Translation used 27 Anyuse200's edits 28 Various edits by anons 29 Merge 30 Opening section, criticism 31 Replacement of main image 32 hadith 33 Suggestion: History of hijab 34 Remove of text in lead 35 Veils in Genesis 36 Scholarly interpretations -- WP can't issue fatwas 37 Translation of حجاب Hejab 38 Blair Says Muslim Veil Is a ‘Mark of Separation’ 39 What is the problem with the veil in Europe? 40 Islamic vs. scholarly opinion 41 Comments 42 Purdah and Hijab 43 Don't play down disagreement 44 There is No mentioning of {distinguished from slave women} in the verse 33:58-61. 45 Links 46 Mention in the Guardian / UK 47 Anyone able to address this?

[edit] Featured Picture

The picture on this article is nominated for a featured picture Richardkselby 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

I found this article to be extremely unbalanced in its blithe treatment of a cultural practice that is very controversial. So I've added some counterpoint to expose some of the rich debate and interesting significant elements of the real picture. Denial is not a river in Egypt. 68.124.19.221 10:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Err

Err, Hijab does not equal Modesty. I believe there is a mix-up here, mistaking Hijab wth Purdah. --195.7.55.146 11:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that Purdah is the South Asian (and maybe Persian) cultural practice that is basically Islamic Hijab overlaid with cultural practices.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:19, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that the hijab is an almost uniquely Arab headcovering whereas Purdah is an Islamic requirement. Muslim women in most South Asian, and South East Asian countries wear different types of head covering, they are not called the Hijab.

Not sure what it's called in other places but Hijab is not a garment, it's the Arabic concept of modesty. Khimars are Arabic head coverings and it's quite possible they don't use that word in South Asia. gren グレン 05:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rewrite

I have done a rewrite inspired by recent interaction with gren and his/her work. Needs better organization.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

Good rewrite, but it covers some of the same ground as Muslim religious dress or whatever it's called now. We ought to link these articles and sort out what belongs where. Zora 04:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, muslim religious dress would be an aspect of hijab (and probably also cover cultural things that hijab doesn't necessarily have to cover). I don't know... Muslim religious dress could be various customs. They are definitely not the same thing... but there is overlap. -gren

Actually, the other way around. I would think we should pull it all in to Islam and clothing and then redirect Hijab there...or maybe not...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:10, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] 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.

[edit] Picture

The picture for this article is a good picture... but... is it good for this article? I question this since the girl is likely under they age where it is considered mandatory to start covering more. Secondly, a fair amount of her hair is showing which is typically not supposed to happen while wearing a khimar. I just think that a more traditional view of an older woman wearing a head scarf should be shown. Comments? gren 08:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this one? It's not a spectacular photo but it might be appropriate. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the picture Current use of the word "hijab" in media and activism actually... because, if it very much so activism looking, moreso than the lady in a Burqa we now have there. For the main picture we want, ideally, a diverse group of people wearind different types of "hijab" and maybe even one without a head covering to show that it doesn't have to (although 99% of the time it implies it) mean a head covering. But, it should be a face view and full body preferably, or so I think. gren 13:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hijab in the Qur'an

I think it's a worthwhile point to distinguish between hadith and Qur'an for this. I was reading something that says the word hijab (variant hijaban) is used in: 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17. Yet usually Al-A'raf:26, An-Nur:31 and As-Sajda:59 are the verses quoted about women's dress. None of the references to hijab being how it is used today. Also khimar is usually translated as veil in Qur'an translations... they maintain that the word refers to a more broad array of things than a head covering... such as curtains, etc. and that translaters take context from hadith and put its interpretation onto the Qur'an (linguists would be useful...?) This leads me to a question. I think it deserves some mention all of this, but how much? The traditional view does not typically talk about these and I can only varify that Hijab is in the transliteration of those 7 and not in the three about women's dress. The issue of the meaning of khimar should be addressed too. The question is how to do it? (but I do think only Qur'an deserves a section) gren 13:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last link of "External Links" is heavily biased against hijab/Islam.

[edit] Needs a Source

The article states that "Furthermore, there are authenic reports indicating that the Prophet Muhammad wore clothing that uncovered his thigh whilst riding his camel." Can we get a source for this?--M m hawk 01:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation request

• Comment, I have put up a translation request for some of the information from the French wikipedia. The sections "Le dévoilement" and "Sens contemporain" seemed interesting and I figured discussion of Qasim Amin and the like would be worthwhile. However, I think we need to be careful that this doesn't throw off balance towards contemporary views and the controversies involved with hijab. gren グレン 02:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content under History

Who added the content under History? I'd like to discuss it. It is starting to be too much about just one very specific part of the wider concept of Hijab and at the very least needs to be labelled as such.

--IFaqeer 11:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

I've been meaning to do this for months. I took the hijab content out of Islam and clothing (which should probably be retitled, back to Muslim religious dress) and moved it here. I extensively reorganized.

There are sections missing. We need the hadith usually cited and a history of hijab. We need a section on Islamic feminism and hijab. We need more historical pictures. But I think this is perhaps the skeleton for a good article. Zora 07:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite error 4; Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content== Hadith relating to hijab ==

I found several hadith through the MSA hadith search page. However, I was unable to find the hadith frequently cited re "covering everything save the face and hands". I suspect that it's a weak hadith from a minor collection, which is why the people using it don't give cites. Does someone know the source of this hadith? Zora 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The source for this hadith is in Sunan Abu Dawood. It is very well known. Shaykh Al-Albani, the late expert of hadith of the 20th century, classed this hadith as authentic based on other corroborating reports found in other narrations. Imam Abu Dawood initially classed it as weak, but the comparison of this hadith to corroborating reports raises its level to authentic, according to Shaykh Al-Albani. Mujaahid 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, he could be expected to say so. Not everyone follows al-Albani, the Salafi. Zora 17:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Al-Albaanee is not by any means the only one who has said this hadeeth is authentic. I only listed his name because he is the expert of our times. There are many classical scholars of hadeeth (who lived centuries before Muhammad ibn AbdilWahhaab lived) who have deemed this hadeeth authentic, including scholars such as al-Bayhaqee and adh-Dhahabee.

Al-Albani is a muhaddith (scholar of hadeeth). The muhaddith never lets his own ideologies misguide his judgment of a narration, which is done on a completely objective basis... for more information on this, you should study the science of hadeeth, which is a very objective science.

Furthermore, you should note that this hadeeth (saying that it is necessary to cover everything but the face and hands) is actually a LENIENCY! The scholars who accept this hadeeth say that it is only necessary to cover everything but the face and hands. However, the scholars who reject this hadeeth say that it is necessary for a woman to cover her face as well! This is because the implication of the Qur'anic verse in light of the actions of the female companions (where many reports show they did cover their faces) is that the face and everything should be covered. So the hadeeth which Al-Albani classed as authentic is a LENIENCY!

And furthermore, Shaykh Al-Albani, regardless of his ideology, is regarded by nearly everyone (Salafis or otherwise), as the most knowledgable hadeeth expert of his time. Moreover, the hadeeth has been narrated in Sunan Abu Dawood, regarded as the 3rd most authentic hadeeth collection (after Bukhari and Muslim). Mujaahid 17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some sources who view this hadeeth as weak, and thus say women must cover their faces. http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=23496&dgn=4 and http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=21134&dgn=3& Mujaahid 17:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Niqab is NOT Required, From the Book "Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah" by Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee

Niqab is NOT Required of the Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee

Niqab is NOT Required From the Book Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee The main errors of those who make the face veil obligatory

1. The interpretation of al-idnaa’ in the verse of the Jilbaab to mean “covering the face”.

This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of the word in Arabic which is “to come close”, as is mentioned in authoritative dictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghib al-Asbahaanee. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation of the leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbaas, who explained the verse saying, “She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it.” It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradict this interpretation are authentic.

2. The interpretation of jilbaab as “a garment which covers the face.”

Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has no basis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leading scholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which women drape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himself narrated this interpretation from Ibn Mas‘ood and other Salafee scholars. Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3, p. 518) saying, “It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn above the dress (dir ‘) and the headscarf.” Ibn Hazm also said, “The jilbaab in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allaah () spoke to us is what covers the whole body and not just a part of it.” (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubee declared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, “It is the cloak worn above the headscarf.” (vol. 3, p. 518)

3. The claim that the khimaar (headscarf) covers the head and the face.

In doing so “the face” has been arbitrarily added to its meaning in order to make the verse:

"Let them drape their headscarves over their busoms"

appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended. For example in the hadeeths on wiping (mas-h) on the khimaar and the prophetic statement, “The salaah of a woman past puberty will not be accepted without a khimaar.” This hadeeth confirms the invalidity of their misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves – much less the scholars – use it as evidence that the covering of a woman’s face in salaah is a condition for its validity. They only use it as proof for covering the head. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa

"to remove their clothing"

to mean “jilbaab” further confirms it. They hold that it is permissible for old women to appear before marriagealbe males in her headscarf with her face exposed. One of their noteable scholars openly stated that. As for Shaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it.

After checking the opinions of the early and later scholars in all the specializations, I found that they unanimously hold that the khimaar is a head covering. I have mentioned the names of more than twenty scholars, among them some of the great Imaams and hadeeth scholars. For example, Abul-Waleed al-Baajee (d. 474 AH) who further added in his explanation, “Nothing should be seen of her besides the circle of her face.”

4. The claim of a consensus (Ijmaa‘) on the face being considered ‘awrah.

Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held that the woman’s face was ‘awrah and many who have no knowledge, including some Ph.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false claim, which no one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which he learned from, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of its falsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example, Ibn Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the face is not considered ‘awrah in the three main schools of Islaamic law and he added, “It is also a narrated position of Imaam Ahmad.” Many Hambalite scholars preferred this narration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference saying, “Because necessity demands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands be uncovered for taking and giving.”

Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih al-Hambalee about whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, “There is no one under the dome of the sky more knowledgeable about the school of Imaam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.” And his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, “You aren’t Ibn Muflih, you are Muflih!”

It is incumbent on me to convey Ibn Muflih’s statements for the readers because of the knowledge and many benefits contained in them. Included in them is further confirmation of the falsehood of Shaykh at-Tuwaijree’s claim and support for the correctness of my position on the issue of uncovering the face. Ibn Muflih stated the following in his valuable work al-Aadaab ash-Shar‘iyyah – which is among the references cited by Shaykh at-Tuwaijree (something which indicates that he is aware of it, but has deliberately hidden these crucial facts from his readers while claiming the contrary):

“Is it correct to chastise marriageable women if they uncover their faces in the street?

The answer depends on whether it is compulsory for women to cover their faces or whether it is compulsory for men to lower their gaze from her. There are two positions on this issue.

Regarding the hadeeth of Jareer in which he said, “I asked Allaah’s Messenger about the sudden inadvertent glance and he instructed me to look away.” Al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad commented, “The scholars, May Allaah Most High have mercy on them, have said that there is proof in this hadeeth that it is not compulsory for a woman to cover her face in the street. Instead, it is a recommended sunnah for her to do so and it is compulsory for the man to lower his gaze from her at all times, except for a legislated purpose. Shaykh Muhyud-deen an-Nawawee mentioned that without further explanation.”

Then al-Muflih mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement which at-Tuwaijree relies on in his book (page 170), while feigning ignorance of the statements of the majority of scholars. Statements like those of al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and an-Nawawee’s agreement with it.

Then al-Muflih said, “On the basis of that, is chastisement legal? Chastisement is not allowed in issues in where there is a difference of opinion, and the difference has already been mentioned. As regards our opinion and that of a group of Shaafi‘ite scholars and others, looking at a marriageable woman without desire or in a secluded circumstance is permissible. Therefore, chastisement is not proper.”

This answer is in complete agreement with Imaam Ahmad’s statement, “It is not proper that a jurist oblige people to follow his opinion (math-hab).” And this is if the truth were on his side. What of the case where the jurist proudly, dishonestly misleads people and declares other Muslims to be disbelievers as at-Tuwaijree did on page 249 of his book saying,

“… Whoever permits women to expose their faces and uses the proofs of al-Albaanee has flung open the door for women to publicly flaunt their beauty and emboldened them to commit the reprehensible acts done by women who uncover their faces today.” And on page 233 he said, “… and to disbelief in the verses of Allaah.”

Those are his words – May Allaah reform him and guide him. What would he say about Ibn Muflih, an-Nawawee, al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and other Palestinian scholars, as well as the majority of scholars who preceded them and who are my salaf regarding my opinion on this matter?

5. The agreement of at-Tuwaijree and the extremists with him to explain away the authentic hadeeths which contradict their opinion.

At-Tuwaijree did this with the Khath‘amiyyah hadeeth. They developed a number of comical methods to nullify its implications. I have refuted them all in ar-Radd and one of them in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah. Some reputable scholars have said that the hadeeth doesn’t contain a clear statement that her face was exposed. This is among the farthest opinions from the truth. For, if her face wasn’t exposed, where did the narrator or the viewer get the idea that she was beautiful? And what was al-Fadl repeatedly looking at? The truth is that this is among the strongest and most clear proofs that a woman’s face is not ‘awrah. In spite of that, there remains a group that insists that she was in ihraam while knowing that her ihraam does not prevent her from draping some of her clothing over her face. At-Tuwaijree does accept sometimes that her face was uncovered but he cancels its implication by saying, “There is no evidence in it that she continuously exposed her face!” He means that the wind must have exposed her face and at that instant al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas saw it. Is it possible for an Arab to say that after reading in the hadeeth “al-Fadl began to stare while turning towards her,” and in another narration “… so he began to look at her and her beauty amazed him.” Isn’t this pride with two protruding horns? At other times at-Tuwaijree interprets it as al-Fadl looking at her size and stature.

6. The frequent use of inauthentic hadeeths and unreliable narrations.

For example, the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas about exposing only one eye is commonly used by those who insist that women are obliged to cover their faces in spite of their knowledge of its inauthenticity. In fact, one among them also declared it inauthentic. Perhaps the most important of these unreliable hadeeth commonly used as evidence is the one in which the Prophet is reported to have said, “Are you both blind?” They blindly followed at-Tuwaijree and the others in claiming that this inauthentic narration was strengthened by other supportive narrations and that it was evidence for the prohibition of women from looking at men, even if they are blind. They took this position in spite of the fact that the narration was classified inauthentic by the leading verification experts among the hadeeth scholars like, Imaam Ahmad, al-Bayhaqee and Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr. Al-Qurtubee related that the narration was not considered authentic among the scholars of hadeeth. Consequently, many Palestinian hambalite scholars made their rulings on that basis. Furthermore, that is what the science of hadeeth and its methodology requires as was clearly stated in al-Irwaa. However, in spite of all that evidence to the contrary, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir as-Sindee had the nerve to go along with Shaykh at-Tuwaijree and others and claim that its chain of narration was authentic. By doing that he exposed himself and his ignorance or feigned ignorance. It is unfortunate that he took this position, because the hadeeth’s chain contains an unknown narrator from whom only one person narrated along with its contradiction to what leading scholars have narrated. Contrary to the level of scholarship that we are used to from Shaykh as-Sindee, he has brought in support of his claim the most amazing things. He arguments unexpectedly contain deception, misguidance, blind following, hiding knowledge and turning away from his own fundamental principles. Among the amazing positions is Shaykh as-Sindee’s feigned ignorance that the narration contradicts the hadeeth of Faatimah bint Qays which contains the Prophet’s permission for her to stay at the home of the blind companion, Ibn Umm al-Maktoom, whom she would be able see. The Prophet gave the reason for that instruction in his statement to her, “For if you take off your head scarf, he won’t see you.” In at-Tabaraanee’s narration from Faatimah, she said, “He instructed me to be at Ibn Umm Maktoom’s home because he couldn’t see me whenever I took my head scarf off.”

There are also a number of other unreliable hadeeths gathered by at-Tuwaijree in his book. I mentioned ten of them in my response, and among them are some fabricated traditions.

7. The classification of some authentic hadeeths and confirmed narrations from the Companions as inauthentic.

The extremists have declared well-established reliable narrations as unreliable and feigned ignorance of strengthening narrations. They have further declared some narrations extremely inauthentic, like the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah concerning the woman who reaches puberty, “Nothing should be seen of her besides her face and hands.” They have persistently declared it inauthentic – the ignorant among them blindly following others devoid of knowledge. In so doing, they contradict those among the leading scholars of hadeeth who strengthen it like al-Bayhaqee and ath-Thahabee. Most of them, including some prominent scholars, feign ignorance of its various chains of narration. In fact, at-Tuwaijree openly stated on page 236 of his book that this statement was only narrated in ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth. Even though he has seen with his own eyes on pages 57-9 of my book two other chains: one of which is from Asmaa bint ‘Umays and the other from Qataadah in the abbreviated (mursal) format with an authentic chain of narration. Many of the blind followers followed him, including some female authors as in Hijaabuki ukhtee al-muslimah [Your veil, my sister Muslim], page 33.

They also pretend to be ignorant of the leading hadeeth scholars and others who strengthened it, like al-Munthiree, az-Zayla‘ee, al-‘Asqlaanee and ash-Shawkaanee. Some of those who promote themselves as being among the well versed in this noble science – in their forefront Shaykh as-Sindee – claim that some of its narrations are extremely weak and unreliable in order to escape from the hadeeth science rule that ‘unreliable narrations are strengthened by narrations similar to them’. In doing that, they delude their readers into thinking that no one ruled the weak narrators, like ‘Abdullaah ibn Lahee‘ah, trustworthy and that they cannot be used as supportive evidence. In doing that, they contradict the methodology of the hadeeth scholars in using supportive evidence. Among them is Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allaah have mercy on them. Likewise, they all feign ignorance that the scholars – among them Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee –confirm the hadeeth mursal if most scholars use it as evidence, as is the case of ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth.

Other strengthening factors may be added to the above.

(a) The hadeeth has been narrated by Qataadah from ‘Aa’ishah. (b) It has been narrated in another chain from Asmaa. (c) All three narrators of the hadeeth ruled according to it.

Qataadah stated in his interpretation of the verse on draping, “Allaah has placed on them the requirement to cover the eyebrows,” That is, “and not on their faces” as stated by at-Tabaree.

‘Aa’ishah said, regarding the female in ihraam, “She may drape the garment on her face, if she wishes.” This was narrated by al-Bayhaqee in an authentic chain of narrators. There is clear evidence in ‘Aa’ishah’s giving the female pilgrim a choice in draping that in her opinion the face was not ‘awrah. Otherwise she would have made it obligatory on them as those who contradict it do. Because of their position, most of the extremist authors, with at-Tuwaijree in the forefront, hid this statement of Umm al-Mu’mineen, ‘Aa’ishah from their readers. The author of Faslul-khitaab [The Definitive Statement] deliberately deleted this portion of al-Bayhaqee’s narration in his book. This being only one of a number of similar disreputable acts which I have exposed in my book. The supportive evidence is that this authentic narration from her strengthens her hadeeth from the Prophet. This is among the facts that people are unaware of or they pretend ignorance of, either choice is bitter to swallow.

As for Asmaa, it has been authentically reported from Qays ibn Abee Haazim that he saw her as a woman of white complexion with tatoos on her hands.

(d) The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas earlier mentioned, “She should pull the jilbaab (cloak) close to her face without putting it on her face.” His interpretation of the verse of adornment

"except what appears from it"

as referring to“the face and hands” was similar. There is also a similar narration from Ibn ‘Umar to the same effect.

At this point, a bitter reality must be noted due to the lessons which may be gained from it, the knowledge which it contains and is service as a reminder of the wise saying: “The truth is not know by people, know the truth and you will know people.”

At the same time that Shaykh at-Tuwaijree insists on rejecting the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and its supporting evidences, among them Qaatadah’s mursal narration, he willingly accepts another inauthentic hadeeth from her with mursal support. In that hadeeth it is mentioned “…that she wore a niqaab (face veil)…” and that she was supposed to have described the Prophet’s wife Safiyyah and the Ansaar women as “… a jewess among jewesses…” which is considered by scholars to be a very erroneous statement (munkar jiddan). The Shaykh argues on page 181, “It has mursal supportive evidence,” and quotes one of the mursal hadeeths of ‘Ataa containing a known liar in its chain of narration.

One should reflect on the great difference between this fabricated supportive evidence and the authentic supportive evidence of Qataadah further supported by other evidences, then ask, “Why did at-Tuwaijree accept the second hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and not the first?” The obvious answer is that the accepted one contains reference to wearing the niqaab – even though it does not indicate obligation – while the rejected one denies it. Thus, in this regard, the Shaykh did not base his position on Islaamic legal principles, but on something similar to the Jewish principle: The ends justify the means. May Allaah help us.

8. Placing unreasonable conditions

Among the amazing practices of some latter day blind following hanafite scholars and others is that on one hand they agree with us regarding the permissibility of women exposing their faces, because that was the position of their Imaams, but on the other hand they agree with the extremists in opposition to their Imaams. They make ijtihaad (while claiming taqleed) by adding the condition that the society be safe from fitnah to the position of the Imaams. This refers to the fitnah caused by women to men. Then one of the ignorant contemporary blind followers went to the extreme of actually attributing this “condition” to the Imaams themselves. Among some of those having no knowledge, this resulted in their concluding that there is essentially no difference between the position of the Imaams and the extremists.

It is obvious to jurists that this condition is invalid because it implies that humans know something which the Lord missed knowing. That is, the temptation of women did not exist during the time of the Prophet () thus we had to create a special ruling for it which did not exist previously. In fact, the fitnah did exist during the era of divine legislation and the story of al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas’ trial with the Khath‘amiyyah woman and his repeated looking at her is not far from the readers’ memories.

It is well known that when Allaah Most High instructed men and women to lower their gazes and instructed women to veil themselves in front of men, He did that to block the road to corruption and prevent temptation. In spite of that, He – Most Great and Glorious – did not command that they cover their faces and hands in front of them. The Prophet () further emphasized that in the story of al-Fadl by not commanding the woman to cover her face. And Allaah was truthful when He said,

"And your Lord is not forgetful"

The reality is that the condition of there not being fitnah was only mentioned by scholars regarding the man’s looking at the woman’s face, as in al-Fiqh ‘alaa al-mathaahib al-arba‘ah, page 12. They said, “That [the woman’s face may be uncovered] is permissible on condition that there is safety from temptation,” and that is true, contrary to what the blind followers practice. They conclude from it that the woman is obliged to cover her face, when in fact it is not a necessary consequence. They know that the condition of safety from temptation also applies to women. For it is not permissible for them to stare at a man’s face except where there is safety from temptation. Is it then a necessary consequence that men also veil their faces from women to prevent temptation as some tribes called the Tawareg do.

They would have a basis in fiqh of the Quraan and Sunnah if they said that a woman veiled in correct jilbaab who fears being harmed by some corrupt individuals due to her face being exposed is obliged to cover her face to prevent harm and temptation. In fact, it could even be said that it is obligatory on her not to leave her home if she feared that some evil authorities supported by a leader who does not rule by what Allaah revealed, as exists in some Arab countries since a few years ago, would pull her jilbaab from her head. As to making this obligation a compulsory law for all women everywhere and in all eras, even if there did not exist any harm for veiled women, No. Absolutely not. Allaah was truthful when He said,

"Do they have partners who legislated for them in the religion what Allaah did not permit??"

These are the most significant of the extremist opposition’s mistakes which I thought needed brief mention due their strong link to the contents of this book. I then closed ar-Radd al-Mufhim with a reminder that extremism in the religion – considering that the Wise Legislator forbade it will not bring any good. And it is not possible for it to produce a generation of young Muslim women carrying Islaamic knowledge and practice moderately balanced, with neither excesses nor deficiencies. Not like what I have heard about some young female adherents in Arab countries when they heard the Prophet’s statement, “The woman in ihraam should neither wear a niqaab nor gloves,” they did not accept it saying instead, “We will wear our niqaabs and gloves!” No doubt, this was a direct result of the extremist views which they heard regarding the obligation of covering their faces.

I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and this is only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for us salafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf.Mujaahid 17:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidences for Jilbaab

http://www.muhajabah.com/jilbab.htm

Very detailed evidences from the Qur'aan and Sunnah showing the obligation of jilbaab. Mujaahid 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examining the Daleels (Evidences) for Niqaab

http://www.muhajabah.com/niqabdalils.htm

Mujaahid 22:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why wear niqaab?

http://www.muhajabah.com/whyniqab.htm

Mujaahid 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is above

Above, I have posted articles and evidences both in favor of and against the idea of the face veil being obligatory. Both sides have their proofs. What there is consensus on and no difference of opinion on among all the scholars in all four schools of thought in Sunni Islam, and even probably amongst Shias, is that: at the very least it is required for the woman to cover everything but her face, hands, and maybe feet, ankles, and forearms; she must also cover her body with a loose overgarment called the jilbaab in order that her figure cannot be seen.

Furthermore, while the scholars differ on whether it is required for a woman to cover her face, they are unanimously agreed that covering the face is a rewardable action, since it was practiced by the wives and female companions of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

Mujaahid 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, all I can say is that you can believe what you want to believe, as long as you don't try to make ME wear any of that.

Obviously the underlying implication this whole time is that we are discussing what is obligatory and what is optional according to the religion of Islaam. I didn't think that needed mentioning... Man yahdihillaahu falaa muDilla lahu, wa man yuDlil falaa haadiya lahu. Mujaahid 07:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the article, all we can do is note that there is controversy, without taking any sides on the controversy. Zora 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is proven objectively that the Qur'an and Sunnah state something, should not that be mentioned? Just because people disagree, if they disagree with objective proofs, that is their problem... it does not change what is objectively proven. I think it is quite dishonest and misleading to not make mention of something which can be shown with objective proofs just because there exists disagreement... but I don't make the rules for this website... Mujaahid 07:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You think that something is true and proven objectively. Another person thinks that you're wrong. We give all notable views (views held by more than a handful of people) equal billing. We don't decide what's true and what's not. Zora 08:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One More Point

You mentioned that if there is a disagreement that a significant portion of the population has, then it should be noted.

OK, let us examine how many "modernist"/"progressive" Muslims are out there... these are really the only groups that say it is OK for a Muslim woman to show her her.

I think it is safe to assume that the modernist movement only really exists in the US and Canada (even in the UK there aren't really too many progressives). While some progressive figures have popped up in the middle east, they were not really accepted by any one in the mid east, and their ideas were taken up by Muslims in mainly the US. Plus, even those in the middle east would still argue for hijab. So the movement is essentially only in the US and Canada...

In the US and Canada, there are probably around 7 million Muslims. Of these, in my experience as a Muslim in the US, the vast majority still hold traditional (or fundamentalist, if you prefer) values and beliefs. Let's be generous and say 10% of US and Canadian Muslims are "progressive" (and 10% think that Muslim women can show their hair).

So this is 10% of 7 million which is almost 1 million (700,000)... let's be generous again and round up to one million progressive Muslims. Now... that is 1 million out of 1.2 BILLION Muslims world-wide! Less than 0.1%!!! Even if you assumed every US Muslim was progressive (which is not true at all)... you'd only less than 0.6% of the Muslim population!!!

I hardly feel that an idea (that Muslim women don't have to cover their hair) that is followed by less than 0.1% of Muslims deserves any mention in an academic encyclopedia. At best, it deserves half a sentence mention to point out that they exist, but form an extreme minority (less than 0.1%).

The fact that we live in the US makes us think that around 10% of Muslims feel this way... but in the global Muslim community, the number is near nothing!!

If anyone feels I am mistaken, then please present proofs... my numbers of American and Candian Muslims are widely accepted by many (and are also on the generous side)...

There's no need for proof, really. The fact is that our NPOV policy means all major views must be presented, and I think a view with one million proponents is pretty major. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

One million out of 1.2 billion (0.1%) is not significant by any stretch of the word. An article on hijab should focus on the opinions of significant groups amongst those who call for hijab.

Then let's agree to disagree. I'm thinking in absolute numbers; you're insisting on a relative way of looking at those numbers. One million people is a lot of people in absolute terms, regardless of whether they are outnumbered or not. (I should also note, by the way, that since this number was extrapolated only from the American population, it ignores more liberal Muslims in places like Turkey, Singapore, China and Malaysia -- a substantial number of whom do not follow hijab.) Johnleemk | Talk 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a jilbab?

I don't think the editors talking about jilbabs and khimars really understand the difficulty of figuring out what those words meant IN THE PAST. Those words have meanings now, meanings greatly shaped by centuries of Islamic scholarship. But were the scholars right in their understanding of what the women of Muhammad's time actually wore, or were they interpreting the Qur'an and the hadith in light of their own times and their own customs? The problem is that all we have is words. So far as I know, there are few or no surviving garments from that time (aside from various robes rumored to be "the mantle of the prophet") and no pictures. So when the Qur'an uses the word "khimar", it's far from clear exactly what a khimar looked like, what kinds of materials were used for khimars, what draping styles were current, etc. Some acquaintance with the academic study of the history of costume might instill some doubts as to the usefulness of mere words in studying costume.

Hence I removed the "definition" of jilbab. WP doesn't issue fatwas. Zora 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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...

[edit] "Lisaan ul-Arab" by Ibn Mandhoor (~1200 CE)

The word "Jilbaab" is defined based on its linguistic meaning by the 13th century Arab linguist, ibn Mandhoor in his authoritative work, "Lisaan ul-Arab." (The Tounge of the Arab)

I believe nearly every person (Muslim or not) refers to this work, "Lisaan ul-Arab", as the most authoritative work on the meaning of Arabic words based on their linguisitc derivations.

Should the definition of Jilbaab in this authoritative, academic work be shared?

Not necessarily. He lived six centuries after Muhammad and he was not a costume historian. Find some 7th century pictures or surviving garments. Zora 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but Lisaan al arab is THE authority on the Arab language. I am undergoing university study of the language and while I'm hardly an expert, I know that much. Most of formal arabic is language is derived from the dialect used in Quran- to the extent that the Quran is taught even in secular study of the language. Lisaan is going to have involved researching the quran and the meanings of the words therein. While he was not a costume historian he was the webster of ArabicAngrynight 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Knowing words is not the same thing as knowing how costumes are constructed, or the social rules for wearing them.

Sometimes knowing the word doesn't give you any clue to its use as costume. Look up the word jaeger. It's a bird or a hunter, right? Well, it was also a costume -- a kind of all-wool union suit sold by a health nut named Jaeger. So you'll find late Victorian writing where people are wearing Jaegers.

Words change over time. The "smock" of today and the "smock" of the 16th century are rather different.

Having pictures doesn't always help you to reproduce the costume. See, for instance, this website on houppelandes: [1].

Knowing the word and how to construct the costume doesn't teach you much about the social rules for wearing the costume. See this site and see how well you do on the test: [2]. Now ask yourself how well you would have done on the test if all you knew was the dictionary definition of "dress". Zora 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Muslim women who support headscarf ban???

I searched on google, and this is what i found: 49% Muslim women support ban, while 43% oppose it.[3]

First of all, the numbers are shaky. Where did the 8% go? Second it is inaccurate to say "the majority" of Muslims women support the ban.

Infact, assuming that 8% refused to comment, it can be said that 43% oppose the ban and 51% don't support it. (To oppose and to not support are different things). Going along with that the "the majority" do NOT support the ban.

So let's clear things up. Bless sins 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We can put in the actual figures, but it is not at all clear that refusing to comment MEANS non-support. It means refusal to comment. Zora 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you survey a diverse sampling out of a population of hundreds of millions of people? I don't see how such a survey can be considered accurate. --FK65 19:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to have the details of how the survey was designed and how the sampling population was chosen to know whether or not it was a valid study. This is the sort of thing studied in statistics. If you're denying that any poll can be valid, statisticians would disagree. If you're saying that this one might have been badly done, you might be right. However, I think it's up to you to investigate and prove that the poll was invalid. Zora 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Some vandal is removing Shi'a pov, could somebody ban the user? --Striver 18:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to get into Sunni/Shi'a distinctions here. It's not at all clear that the Shi'a and Sunni ulema have different stances on this issue. Zora 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Striver, you called me here via a message on my talk page. I would like to remind you to assume good faith before calling users vandals. Regarding the relevance of the viewpoint in this article, I really can't give an answer since I am not familiar with the topic. I encourage you to continue discussing the matter with Zora if you still don't understand why Zora believes in a certain way. Thanks. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOU, what term do you want?

So far as I can tell, the garment currently called a jilbab was adopted in the 1970s by the Muslim Brotherhood, and has since spread through Salafi/Islamist/"fundamentalist" circles. You can't just say that "Muslims" advocate wearing this garment, as if only the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, etc. were the true Muslims and all the other Muslims are just kafir. That is inherently POV. Now if you don't like the term Islamist -- which may not be the best one -- what term can we use? Would you prefer just to say Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis? Zora 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Salafi would be a better term. It is more politically correct to use in Islam. Very few Muslims, even those who do not agree with those sects, use the term Islamist. The proper term used in Islamic circles is salafi, if anything. Sometime wahabi, but that is considered to be deragatory by some. MuslimsofUmreka 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation used

An anon replaced the translation of the Qur'anic verses that have been there for a long time with a different translation. NEITHER translation is identified. I reverted to the original version, if only to get the anon's attention, and now I'm bringing it up here: which translation should be used? Different Muslims like different versions. Personally, I prefer the Arberry, just as being the prettiest, and not taking a party line, but other people like different versions. Please discuss. How do we figure out which version to use? Zora 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyuse200's edits

I have left this user a message about discussing their additions. To me (and since Zora reverted some too) they are overly pietistic and are calling one ruling "Islamic" to the discredit of others. Therefore, if we do want to include this aspect it should be rewritten and Anyuse200 shoud discuss that here. gren グレン 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyuse200 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I have not left any narrow views, or called anything "islamic". What I probably should've done is list various different opinions of scholars. However, to call it medieval is absurd, even liberal scholars say a woman shouldn't entice men by jingling or toying with her ornaments and they say a woman shoulnd't talk in flirutatious manner. However, the same scholar did not say a woman's voice was awrah, and of course a woman is free to go about her business.

---

. What I was doing was a work in progress. Sure eroticsm takes many forms including a woman's voice and her jangling jewelry and walking in certain ways.

Most scholars to believe that a woman's voice shouldn't be alluring and she shouldn't jingle or cause her bangles/anklets to sound off , becuase that would be alluring to men. Most scholars to agree that a woman can expose her hands/face in front of men who aren't mahram.

[edit] Various edits by anons

Someone replaced all instances of hijab with the Arabic version. IMHO, while it's a good idea to give a transliteration ONCE, we don't need to do this for every word. I think the word has been absorbed into English now. It gets 2,250,000 google hits!

Someone also interspersed various comments saying that certain beliefs or practices were Islamic or non-Islamic, which I removed. WP has to stay neutral. We can't make religious judgments. Zora 06:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I propose the page sartorial hijab is merged with this page as it contains very useful tables for the section on dress. Any comments or thoughts? Thanks Andeggs 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose-kind-of. I made that page... and, it's horrible. It was the product of a debate here about hijab. Zora did a great job of clarifying the broad sense and the clothing sense which has come to the fore today especially in the West (where it is the only sense) but also in Muslim world. I oppose because I think Sartorial hijab should be moved to "List of traditional Islamic clothing" or something. Becuase, hijab as a concept is vague and that table implies that only clothes from tradtionally Muslim lands can be hijab. Well... you have girls today who wear jeans and a headscarf which is widely accepted as okay... and then you have girls who don't cover their head which is a minority view as acceptable... but, that's more complex. The point is... with varying degrees we can't be so prescriptive and we need to say who accepts what, etc. The reason I oppose a merge is because my vision for that page was to show many styles with a brief explanation. You'll note that there are multiple images for certain types of clothing. We couldn't have that on this page without completely overcrowding it. But, that is why a list of traditional Islamic clothing styles is worthwhile because you can show the mesh-face burqa and the slit-face burqa. Also you can show different styles of tying the khimar. A table that included all of that (and hopefully is better than the current page) would bog down this page in style issues instead of addressing what is hijab... which is the point of this page and this could address juristic rules, etc. We can merge some of the material if it's relevant and doesn't throw off balance. gren グレン 03:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see what you mean, this long table would distort the whole page. However we do need rationalisation between the artcles on hijab, sartorial hijab and Islam and clothing. Are there any other similar pages? Andeggs 08:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Sartorial hijab was a bad call and Zora's fix of this page removed the reasons for it. I think it should be:

• Hijab - religious / modern concept implications. What is modest and to whom, etc.
• Islam and clothing - What do Muslims tend to wear in traditionally Muslim societies and today. This is outside the context of what is modest (meaning what meets the conceptions of hijab--although there will be overlap). This will be a discussion of that.
• Sartorial hijab will be moved to something like "List of traditional Muslim clothing" or... someone can come up with a better title. But, it will be a list article... and someday if we ever do a good enough job it can become a featured list. We'll make the style very similar to what it is. Name of the piece of clothing. Image. Description with some context of where it is/was found. But, it will link to the main articles for full explanations. Does that sound good? Maybe "List of Muslim-related clothing". I'm not sure of the title but I think making it a list solves the problem because... it really is a list.

If you look on Islam and clothing it talks about the religious mandate of hijab... and separate from that are issues like how to dress for prayer, etc... gren グレン 08:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening section, criticism

Someone rewrote the opening section to claim that hijab means covering all but the face, hands, and feet, which is an extreme claim. The majority of the world's Muslims would NOT accept this as the only possible interpretation of hijab.

The criticism section had also been worked over by hijab supporters, if not so flagrantly. I rewrote; I think it's fair. I set up sections for supporters and critics. Zora 09:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement of main image

I can't believe an article this prominent, and easily illustrated, is relying on a "Fair use" Turkish magazine cover for its photograph. Couldn't somebody here please try their hand at creating a PD or GFDL version for us? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hadith

This is relevant to ths subject --Striver 04:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: History of hijab

In a discussion at Chador with Korshid, it became clear that there's not a whole lot of material in English on the different styles of hijab worn by various communities, and the history of those styles. Pictures of historic hijab are also lacking.

This is one area where various people working together can do more than one person working alone. I think that this material exists, but it's scattered and if written, written in languages other than English. Could other interested editors keep an eye out for both contemporary and historic names of styles of hijab, especially women's hijab, and above all, PICTURES? It might be a good idea to have a History of hijab article as a sub-article of this one -- perhaps not immediately, but I imagine that it would soon grow to sufficient size to warrant budding.

Of course real costume history doesn't just give pictures, it gives patterns, so that styles could be replicated. If there are historic garments preserved anywhere, they could serve as the basis for patterns. That's how it's done for Western costume history, which is the most developed branch (or so I'm guessing, but I could be wrong; there could be whole huge literatures out there of which I'm unaware). Zora 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is something where Wikipedia could be very helpful in clearing myths and misconceptions about Muslim women. A very important thing I believe is in clearing away the assumptions and preconceptions people have when they assume everyone is the same and dresses the same way etc. These conceptions are true anywhere in the world but of course with Muslims there is the added prejudices. People like Ali Sina aren't helping. :) Khorshid

[edit] Remove of text in lead

Someone changed the statement that hijab in the broadest sense means modest dress and demeanour to the statement that hijab requires covering all but the face and the hands. I restored the old text. Then someone (else?) deleted the sentence about modest dress and demeanour, which left the lead para as saying that hijab was a headscarf. This is completely wrong. I restored the text re modest dress and demeanour, and rewrote the caption on the picture so that it no longer equates headscarf and hijab. I also did a bit of reformatting, so that the article was somewhat less crowded. Zora 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, you mangled the introduction and restored the old formatting. IF you want to put the picture and the Islam template together, then they should be the same width -- which I did. I also rewrote the introduction again.

We can't say that Muslim women wear headscarves, because some women who believe that they are Muslimas don't wear khimar. We can't write so as to make claims about who is a Muslim and who isn't. Zora 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I 101% agree with you. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thing which I read in John L. Esposito's book is that Muslim women used to be very much involved even in political affairs, as Qur'an gives atleast one account of women giving their pledge to Muhammad, and then the writer says that rich women use to take Veils and they never use to involve in physical work. This circle of women increased to a limit that a thirteenth century Muslim scholar writes that it is not permissible for a women to show more than her eyes except for medical reasons. So he thinks that there is a huge shift between the society of Muhammad's time and evolution in Islamic society. He also thinks that adaption of Chador and Burqa came late from other cultures. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, I'd agree with that. Myself, I think that it is irresponsible for a woman, or a man, to send culturally coded messages of "I'm sexually available" to all and sundry. That should be a private message, for one person, conveyed subtly. But since the messages delivered by clothing vary from culture to culture, I think it would be possible for a woman to walk around in a string skirt and bare breasts (like New Guinea women) and still, in the way she wore her skirt and moved, convey that she was a respectable woman who was not interested in sexual adventures. There's no making rules about it. People can send signals despite the rules. It's a matter of intent. Zora 10:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that social environment does make its own rules. But in a civilized world, women showing their breasts definitely provokes sexual desire. And as a male, I can't deny this fact, whatsoever. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What is "arousing" is culturally conditioned. You see a breast as arousing. For a New Guinea man, it's no more arousing than an earlobe. I think that rules requiring the covering the genitals (even if it's only a penis sheath) are extremely widespread, but I'm not sure that even those rules are universal. Zora 07:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Islamists, it it modesty, yet others like Tunisian authorities say they are encouraging women, instead, to "wear modest dress in line with Tunisian traditions [i.e. no headscarf]"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5382946.stm

One could argue that any special clothing is a sign of haughtiness to distinguish oneself from others. Proponents of hijab want a scarf and other clothes resembling those worn by clerics. (Salman Rushdie, in The Satanic Verses, called Imam Khomeini's robe a "skirt".)

The argument about nakedness is meaningless since non-Muslim women who do not wear a headscarf do wear a shirt. Why has the impertinent argument of a bare upper body been proffered? --13:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you guys seem to see your own cultural conditioning as completely natural and universal. Ethnocentrism. Zora 07:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone considers his belief to be better than the other and this is why you follow this belief in the first place. The only thing is the balance, that you should not be-little others for their beliefs and should be able to listen to them. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The principal meaning of hijab is wearing the headscarf.

Most mullahs and other clerics agree on this. For instance, a Muslim cleric would unequivocally say that a woman like Senator Susan Collins does not have hijab.--14:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Tunnisian argument from Lead paragraph as it doesn't belong there. I have rather put it under critics of hijab. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Patchouli, could you please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that it signs your name after you posts and not just the date. Thank you. gren グレン 05:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veils in Genesis

Citing Genesis as a criticism of hijab is a misuse of a complex and hard-to-interpret primary source. I don't think that any Christians or Jews have interpreted that verse as a prohibition of hijab, but if they did, then we should cite THEM, not Genesis.

Academic scholars believe that Genesis is a compilation of several older texts that was edited and reworked for centuries. Therefore any equation of veils and prostitution can't be pinned down to any one time and place. It seems strange to me, because everything else I've read about veiling in the ancient Near East is that it was a sign of respectability, and that prostitutes were not allowed to veil like other women^{[citation needed]}. I'm not up on Bible/Torah interpretation and I don't know what scholars make of that verse.

If that belongs anywhere, it seems to me that it belongs in a section on the history of hijab and in a discussion of the meaning of veiling in Muhammad's time. Zora 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The book of Genesis gives an attribution of prostitution to covering of the face: "When Judah saw her (Tamar), he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face [with a vail]".Genesis 38:15.

It has nothing to do with prohibition. Please cite a source that claims hijab was a sign of respectibility before 600CE.--Patchouli 09:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Zora that this can be a very specific event and cannot be generalized for all eras before 600CE. Secondly, you need to have a secondary source to claim what you say, not Zora needs to show a secondary source to negate your claim. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"While fashions change, there have always been styles of clothing that advertise a woman is a prostitute. At one point it was the wearing of a veil (Genesis 38:13-26)".http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVstudies/GrowingUpInTheLord/Girls/13Prostitution.htm

• Here is an excellent link wherein scholarly sources and arguments are propounded for both sides and it appears that this dispute is nothing new.--Patchouli 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The U of Alberta link is very interesting and it corroborates what I read in El Guindi (that's where I got the information re veiling). In fact, it's better than El Guindi, as it contains info that she doesn't have re Jewish veiling. Note that the author concludes that the veil was NOT a symbol of prostitution -- so that the other church link is not only nonacademic, it's probably wrong. The info re Jewish veiling could be useful if we ever do get a history of hijab started.

In any case, if we're talking about the social meaning of veiling in Muhammad's time, I think the evidence is very clear that upper-class women of the Byzantine and Persian empires were secluded or veiled. Since these were the two major civilization with which the Arabs were in contact, it would seem that these examples would create the social context in which Muhammad's wives were to adopt upper-class customs, as befitting their new dignity. Zora 12:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly interpretations -- WP can't issue fatwas

That section had been turned into a complete jumbled hash. I rewrote it. I think it's clearer now, but unfortunately, it's also clear that it's sketchy. I think we need a precis of the views of particular eminent scholars of the past on hijab, and a wider array of contemporary scholarly opinions. So I'm not defending my rewrite as definitive; I just think it's better than what was there, which seemed to me to be the detritus of continued attempts to rewrite the section to prove that one or another interpretation of hijab was the only correct one. We really have to be careful with that; WP can't issue fatwas! Zora 09:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of حجاب Hejab

The first sentence of the article read before my edit that "Hijab or ħijāb (حجاب) is the Arabic term for "barrier"."

"Barrier" is only one of the possible translations for it, just as "diaphragm" or "curtain" is. (Hans Wehr, Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Beirut, 1980). I will change the translation to "cover" (noun) as that would be closer to the root حجب meaning "to veil, to cover (verb) screen, shelter".

حاجز (hajez)would be a more direct translation of the term "barrier", as in "roadblock".

--Soylentyellow 23:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair Says Muslim Veil Is a ‘Mark of Separation’

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/europe/17cnd-britain.html?ex=1318737600&en=c58fafc1192774a6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

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.”

[edit] What is the problem with the veil in Europe?

I have watched the media get into a frenzy over the wearing of veils in France, and now in the UK. Here in the USA, I think most people do not care if someone wears a veil or not. I would be very surprised if anyone got upset about veils here. Is this a fundamental difference in the societies? --Filll 21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic vs. scholarly opinion

There seems to be a lot of difference between what Islamic jurists have thought of Hijab, and what scholarly articles and books suggest, as latter assumes it to be a habit picked up from Byzantine and Persian Empire. I added the following paragraph from Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World(2003), p.721, New York : Macmillan Reference USA:

The term hijab or veil is not used in the Qur'an to refer to an article of clothing for women or men, rather it referes to a spatial curtain that divides or provides privacy. The Qur'an instructs the male believers (Muslims) to talk to wives of Muhammad behind a hijab. This hijab was the responsiblity of the men and not the wives of Muhammad. However, in later Muslim societies this instruction specific to the wives of Muhammad was generalized, leading to the segragation of the Muslim men and women. The modesty in Qur'an concerns both men's and women's gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia. The clothings for women involves khumūr over the necklines and jilbab (cloaks) in public so that they maybe identified and not harmed. Guidlines for covering of the entire body except for the hands, the feet, and the face, are found in texts of fiqh and hadith that are developed later.

Now the question is, wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, shouldn't we give more weight to scholarly sources. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I heard a fascinating discussion of this issue last evening on NPR. According to this radio article, there is documented use of the veil/niqab and hijab for many centuries before Mohammed.--Filll 18:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats quite possible, but the point raised by John Esposito and other scholars is that it is not enforced by Islam, rather a habit picked up from other lands. For more details, see Muhammad#Women.27s_rights. TruthSpreader^Talk 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

-Excuse me, everyone. I'm not a member, but I would like to make a point here. The article seems very imbalanced in its discussion of the obligatory nature of the hijab. Virtually all of Islamic scholars consider it to be a compulsory command of God, not a cultural practice picked up from Muslim expansion. I'm not saying that the idea that the compulsory nature of the hijab is only a cultural practice should not be mentioned, I'm just saying that the article must give the view of almost all Muslims and of even a greater percentage of Islamic scholars: that the hijab is considered compulsory. The scholarliness of the respective points of view should also be taken into consideration. Virtually all Islamic scholars for the past 1,400 years, who spent their entire lives studying Islam, have said that the hijab is compulsory. The scholars claiming that the hijab is not compulsory, however, are not only non-Muslim, but have spent nowhere near their entire lives studying Islam, and are in a stark minority. Just thought you should include this as well. Thanks for listening.24.23.218.37 13:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Some comments:

• Should the recent controversy in Holland over proposed anti-hijab laws be included?
• As we understand more about the dangers of exposing our skin to sunlight (and maybe as sunlight becomes more dangerous), might hijab start spreading and even be adopted by nonmuslims or worn for nonreligious reasons? Was hijab originally worn thousands of years ago to protect the hair and skin from the sun?
• The hijab is claimed to be for modesty. But in some instances, hijab or niqab might be viewed as more of an enticement than an uncovered head or face because it is more mysterious. Clothing is often much more enticing than nakedness. Comments?

Male chauvanisum in those countrys in ancient times? --Lilidor 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purdah and Hijab

I believe that in traditional Islamic scholarship, Hijab is article of clothe while Purdah is the concept of sexual seggregation. Hence, these two are completely different concepts. Correct me if I am wrong! TruthSpreader^reply 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also have taken Purdah to involve physical segregation; thus it has non-Muslim meanings. So I would oppose a merge of the articles. --Henrygb 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

However, I think it can be combined in the sense that Qur'anic verses and hadith literature for both of these concepts is the same. Similarly, the scholarly commentry for these two concepts is the same. And both concepts are very close to each other. I am now thinking that it might not be a bad idea to merge. TruthSpreader^reply 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. These are very different concepts in English. There are other societies that have practiced purdah without being Islamic. I don't have the link, but there's a nice recent article by an Islamic feminist who says that many Muslim women manage to combine discreet observance of hijab (head scarves, covering arms and legs but with current fashions) with careers. The hijab assures their families that they intend to be good Muslimahs, and makes it possible for them to work outside the home. So hijab makes it possible for women to escape purdah. Zora 05:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't play down disagreement

Truthspreader, again you've removed material that points to conflicting opinions and replaced it with a nice-nice version stressing unanimity among Muslims -- unanimity on a position that I strongly suspect matches your own. You seem to me to believe that your opinions ARE the real Islam. I've let you have your head in a number of articles, where you declare that "Islam is ..." and "Islam believes ..." but that's because of fatigue, not because I acquiesce. We need to strike "Islam is ..." and such phrases from WP, because a claim that "Islam is ... " is a claim to have the CORRECT interpretation. WP can't do that. WP is not an Islamic scholar and cannot issue fatwas. All we can say is "some Muslims believe Islam is X" and "some Muslims believe Islam is Y".

I will restore the material you removed (plus keeping what you added) tomorrow -- it's late now and I'm tired. Zora 09:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add/remove any thing recently on this article. Which edit are you talking about? TruthSpreader^reply 13:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of just how "free" married couples should be with each other; I had originally found two website quotes demonstrating two very different attitudes, and you replaced them with a quote from some scholar and said this was supported by most Muslims. You don't know that, do you? Zora 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I just removed it because it was just pointing to some website and I thought that it would be better to use a reliable source instead i.e. a PhD thesis as per WP:V. --TruthSpreader^reply 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is No mentioning of {distinguished from slave women} in the verse 33:58-61.

Dear sir or Madam;

There is small error in your translation of the verse 33:58-61 ,and there is No mentioning of {..distinguished from slave women..} in the verse 33:58-61

The actual verse say {... dhalika adna an yu'rafna fa laa yu'dhayn..} meaning ..{that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not to be molested.

The verse 33:58-61 says { O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their [Jalabib] over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful}

I would like also to read from Wikapedia Jilbab Subject to be more confirmed .

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jilb%C4%81b

Cheers and Regards.

217.42.223.75 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The "slave woman" is in brackets hence it is not part of translation but pointing out the fact that Muslim women should be distinguished from slave women. As hypocrates in those days were teasing Muslim women and when they used to be caught, they always used to say that I thought that she is slave of xyz person. Hence, this directive was to stop hypocrates from doing such things. For more detail see: (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, vol. 3, (Beirut: Daru’l-Ahya wa al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1969), p. 518; Zamakhshari, Kashshaff, 1st ed., vol. 3, (Beirut: Dar al-Ahya al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1997), p. 569). This translation is taken from Mizan. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Is this a sponsored article or something? Arrow740 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention in the Guardian / UK

Just thought I would mention, this Wikipedia article is the subject of a blog entry, here -- http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/02/wiki_ways.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 08:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC).Wikidemo 08:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone able to address this?

I removed this recent bit of embedded commentary from the section on "Women's dress":

Originating in Pakistan [Pakistan, as a country is only about 60 years old, and the burqa is much older than that. Before the Indo-Pak Partition in 1947, there was one country called 'Hindostan' or 'Hindustan', and the burqa was worn in many parts of Hindostan including North-Western Hindostan that is now Pakistan. One of the scholarly editors of Wikipedia might want to look into this], it is more commonly associated with Afghanistan.

Anyone with more historical experience want to take this on? Figma 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)