Talk:Islamic dress controversy in Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class.
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Europe
Europe Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This proposed ban in the Netherlands — does it apply only to face-coverings worn for religious reasons, or is it intended to make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public?

"Some countries already have older laws banning the wearing of masks in public"

Which countries?

Njál 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay ... it appears from the BBC that it is the case that any face-covering will be banned.
Is there an English translation available of Creemer's law in Belgium which, according to the article, 'states that persons on the public street and in public buildings must be identifiable at all times, "to protect the social order, which allows a harmonious process of human activities"'? Njál 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Denmark has a law banning masks at demonstrations Rune X2 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

is there a controversey of this kind in the USA? Richardkselby 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard, NY has an anti-mask law (from the 1890's) that was used on anti-globalisation protestors at the World Economic Forum when it was in NY after 9/11. This law, brought in to stop the KKK could be used the same way as the same laws in Belgium and italy.Hypnosadist 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] And what about Albania and Bosnia?

People in these European countries are predominately muslim, but most people (including women) living on the dress in a typical Western way — and the same goes for Kosovo. So why not to cite these cases?--MaGioZal 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think because this comes from the French wiki and is really the affaire des foulards and is referring to Islamic dress in Western Europe where the real legal battles have been. gren グレン 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find both proponent and detractors of Islam (and the indifferent!) who would argue that the populations are not predominantly Muslim, check out Talk:Islam_in_Albania for example, talk about warring. A similar confusion exists for Bosnia the best figure appears to be 40% (CIA factbook) for Bosnia, that's a minority in anyone's book. The same reference book gives 70% estimate for muslim population of Albania, but it's clearly wrong as it assigns all people as being part of 3 religious groupings; other estimates apparently are of the order of 25%. Pbhj (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I made a new Category:Islamic dress controversy in Europe, is there a need for all categories to appear in the main article and the category itself as well? Misheu 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentation incomplete and biased

Theere are much more arguments against Islamic dress then were mentionned. I've added a few.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.170.77 (talk • contribs) May 31, 2007

[edit] Rajasthani picture

I don't necessarily object to the picture from Rajasthan (NW India), but it should be remembered that, for complicated historical reasons, most of the women in Rajasthan who veil, usually by pulling the top of their saris over their faces, are Hindu not Muslim. If this picture is used, it should somehow be integrated into this discussion of the Islamic dress controversy in Europe, which has at times touched the religious or customary dress of non-Muslim men and women such as Hindus, Sikhs and Jews. Shakescene (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The bottom left quadrant of the picture, showing women from Rajasthan covering their head, is definitely not an example of Hijab. In fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. They are wearing a dress traditionally worn by Hindu women(in particular those belonging to Rajasthan, but also common amongst many other Hindu communities in India). I recommend that this part of the picture be replaced as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, nothing to do with Europe and nothing to do with any controversy surrounding it.

Fouraces (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

Why is there a section about Turkey in this article? Turkey is not in Europe. --어국한 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One who reads this part will think that nobody is allowed to wear a handkerchief in Turkey. This ban ONLY includes government workers (doctors, nurses, teachers, etc.) or other workers of public institutions And the students (from primary school to university). And the photos of the identifiy cards and driving licenses CAN be with the hair covered. -Mine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.21.238 (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is more or less recognized as part of Europe because of its involvement in the European Union, although I don't believe it's recognized as a full member, I know it started full member negotiations in 2005, and has been an associate member for over 40 years. 69.118.146.157 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in the article

> Turkey is a secular state <

Turkey is a military dictatorship, an atheist military dictatorship that sustains itself via american and zionist military support. Even when there is a facet parliament and governing cabinet, the generals hold the actual power and stage coups when they feel like.

There is nothing secular in Turkey, even the army is actually atheist, rather than secular! 82.131.210.162 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC) woow I was living in an atheist country, i didn't notice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.21.238 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

despite the majority of Turks being Muslims

This comment contradicts the above then? Turkey (I've not visited for a few years mind you) always struck me as Muslim in the same way that Britain is Christian, it has that religious heritage, many people nominally state it to be their religion, not so many are genuine practitioners. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between secular <=> atheist. As for claiming Turkey as a military dictatorship, if military coups are necessary for the army to seize power then it's not a military dictatorship. Pbhj (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
teh turkish militairy is ridiculously more powerufl in turkey than the British military is in Britan. to compare the two countries in anyway is erroneously erroenous. Smith Jones (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't comparing anything about the military in UK and Turkey, they are as you say vastly different. All I was saying is that impression from visiting Turkey was of a country that was nominally religious on the whole in the same way that the UK is nominally religious as a whole. People refer to UK as being a Christian country (whatever that means) but a relatively small percentage are practising Christians. People refer to Turkey as being a Muslim country (it's not under Sharia however) - like CIA factbook giving 99.8% Muslim population (mainly Shia) - this grates as the military have intervened against Islamic rule quite recently, something which would not happen if the country were really 99.8% (or any great majority) Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Picture caption

I don't believe the image caption is correct for the top picture. It says that it show four examples of the Hijab, but the one on the upper right looks like a niqab. Wrad (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)ad

I agree. Also the one at bottom right looks like a Al-Amira . For different types of Muslim veils see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm Fouraces (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced POV statement

The following statement was added to the middle of the Belgium section (after the Keulen quote) by an anonymous user earlier today: "Regardless of what the minister said, Muslims cite authentic Islamic sources to support their position, and have proven that covering the face is firmly established in the religion, and not merely a cultural custom." I've removed it as unsourced and POV, not to mention that "Islamic sources" is a non-existent wikilink. Furthermore, even if such statement were sourced, it wouldn't belong at this point in the article, unless it was a specific response to Keulen's statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Darrow (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not hijab!

The Rajasthani women in this picture are not wearing hijab! Original image can be seen here. The women are wearing a dupatta. Please remove this misleading image. The term hijab cannot be used to refer to any piece of clothing used by women to cover their head especially if that clothing has traditional name. As far as I know, hijab is more of a Islamic religious clothing and there is no reason to believe the Rajasthani women depicted are muslims. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)