Talk:Hijab/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

other elements of hijab

why is there a separate section that does not logically follow that contains an alternate translation to the one provided above? I vote for delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.13.109 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusion: hijab vs. burqa

This article fails to establish an equivalence between the subject ("hijab") and "burqa" before presenting...

In more secular Muslim nations, such as Turkey or Tunisia, many women are choosing to wear the Hijab, Burqa, Niqab, etc. as an act of defiance against the secularization of society, but also because of the widespread growth of the Islamic revival in those areas[citation needed].

...which suggests that "hijab", "burqa", and "nigab" are the same thing. (In the original quote, emphasis is mine.) Are they the same thing? This article suggests so, yet hijab and burqa have separate Wikipedia articles. niqab does not have an Wikipedia article. I hope this comment is helpful. 75.45.119.51 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not the same thing. Wikilinking the three would do the job I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture?

...why do I have to scroll through half the article to see what this thing looks like?

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not a single thing, but sevaral. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing, then, that this sentence seems to refer primarily to a single type of head covering.

"A hijab or ḥijāb (حجاب, pronounced [ħiˈdʒæːb]), as commonly understood in the English-speaking world, is the type of head covering traditionally worn by Muslim women, but can also refer to modest Muslim styles of dress in general."

J.M. Archer (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Infusion of True Reality

4 pictures from the last 50 years of Cairo University Graduates.

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/01/28/the-steady-erosion-of-womens-rights-in-egypt-a-photographic-story/

Notice anything?

The Hijab, as currently constructed and worn is NEW. It's an Islamist Political statement as the Mao suit was for China and MaoISTS. (which could of course then become fashionable to others.)

Amir Taheri:

"...Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne'a and picheh, among others.

All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colorful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.)...."

-

All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.

That claim is totally False. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.

This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shi'ite community.."

[..........]

Muslim women could easily check the FRAUDULENT nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will Not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam.

This FAKE Islamic hijab is nothing but a Political Prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilization.

It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war.

The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a "good Muslim" without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab.

[...........]

http://www.headscarf.net/this%20is%20not%20islam.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

The entire article, except for one short paragraph at the end, is slanted towards defending the hijab. No mention is made of the oppression of women. --24.139.46.213 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

yes it should be fair not favor one side wikipedia shows facts info not there opppions it should be unbais i don't think the hijab does oppression woman unlike the burqa or veil but should make it favour one side should state information etc.. and live oppions out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias

"One of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari in one of his masterpieces on this subject, The Islamic Modest Dress, says:"

I don't think there's any need to point out which parts of that line do not belong in a wikipedia article, I'm surprised that such blatant bias was allowed remain in this article considering the strong opinions that exist about this sort of topic. I'm not sure the quote following that line is really fitting either since farther down in the article there is a list of alternative views including views on the subject described in the quote. There should be sources qualifying it as a dominant meaning given to the word, although the way I'm reading it, it's not really a definition. If it was part of the Etymology and not meant to be a different meaning I think there probably needs to be more information about different meanings, sources demonstrating usages, current widely held usage, etc. The more I think about it, both the 'Etymology and meaning' and 'Alternative views' section need changed. If a clear history of the changes to the meaning/meanings of the word exists, it could be demonstrated more clearly, with either the popular meaning listed at the top followed by alternate views, or ALL suggested meanings being listed equally. I'll try to make some changes myself if nobody has the time/motivation to fix this, but considering the structuring of sections could be improved and mainly I lack any knowledge on the topic, I'm not sure I'm comfortable making the changes. At the very least, if someone could fix that one line.. Five- (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see now that this was added in the last edits just days previously.. I mistakenly assumed it was part of the article for longer or was part of the efforts of others working on the article. I was going to undo his edits, but I recall reading that we should come to agreements on edits instead of undoing other contributors work, allowing them(or others) to fix their changes and make them fit the article and wikipedia rules. Maybe there is room for this down in alternative views, minus the 'Puffery'. If the contributor or anyone else wants to make it fit somewhere else and follow the rules, I'll refrain from undoing it in a couple days.Five- (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at contributors account and this one edit was his only contribution. I feel like the combination of obvious bias and new account suggests a purposeful intent to break the rules, although I could very well be wrong, I am not very knowledgeable of Wikipedia etiquette and mean no offense by this suggestion. I have undid his edits though. Five- (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Teresa of Avila wearing a hijab, or something else?

Teresa of Avila was one of the people coming under suspicion by Torquemada during the Spanish Inquisition. In the article she is wearing something that looks like a hijab to me. I assume (but don't know) that during earlier Moorish rule such a thing would have been called a hijab, right? Of course, the people during Torquemada's time were generally very, very careful not to be Muslims, and certainly Teresa was not one. And she was a nun - they have religious habits of their own, but varying over time in all sorts of forms, some of which look sort of like hijabs - still, I couldn't help but notice Teresa has no hair showing. I don't know what non-religious women of the time wore. And is a hijab defined as a piece of cloth with a certain appearance, or in terms of the religious belief of the wearer? Anyway, I present this odd little question in the hope it will sand the gears of war. ;) Wnt (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuns' habits were usually designed to look like a poor married woman's dress in a certain place and time, so that they wouldn't be molested. In many traditional European cultures up to ca. 1800, married women were required to cover their head, as you can see in Renaissance paintings from all over Europe. (It's even proverbial: in Germany, you still can say "she'll come under the hood next year" for "she'll marry next year", although already our grannies didn't wear hoods and didn't know why they refer to marriage.) Nuns usually wear their hair short as part of their penance. Therefore the habit is not primarily designed to hide hair. It is designed, however, to give a modest appearance and not expose sex appeal. Curryfranke (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Hijab.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hijab.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 22 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Quran never speaks of veiling.

surah 24:30 and al-ahzab 33:59 simply says "put outer garment on". there is no direct or indirect reference to any particular clothing type deemed suitable for women.

if the texts demanded women to cover their heads, it would mention it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.21.169 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hijab pic

Women from Iran, for the edit-warring IP user... --E4024 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Muslim styles of dress would be a better name, since the term hijab is fixed in the Western, English-speaking mind as the head-covering in particular. Using a more general-sounding title would make the article more accessible to non-Muslims. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also:

If no one objects, I will move the article some time this month. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

But wouldn't we still need an article for hijab (i.e. the Western understanding of the word)? Seems like it would be better to keep them together and try to address both aspects in the article. Splitting it in two would be more confusing, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciations in Various Language

Maybe it would be interesting if the pronunciations for "hijab" here would, incidentally, list how it's pronounced in, maybe: Urdu, Farsi, and Malay? (Like, in the Malay, I wouldn't be surprised if it were ['hε.dʒap]. Or maybe they don't use the Arabic word and just use "tudung" (=veil, but also just covering or lid.) I'm picking those three languages as just my idea of "most 'important' languages spoken by Moslems besides Arabic"-- but, a glance at the article "Islam by country" will show you that my guess was a wild guess. (That page it has some surprises!, like there's more Moslems in Nigeria than in Iran!). Anyway, this is just a thought I had, showing how Arabic shows up in different cultures, maybe somebody can make something useful from it. —Sburke (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Large slant against requirement of Hijab

There is a discrepancy in this article towards Hijab not being a religious requirement. The writer/editor has failed to incorporate Islamic prophetic tradition and history into the ruling of necessity for Hijab. There is a large chunk of knowledge missing which states very clearly where the imperative of the Hijab comes from. The belief of 500 million women wearing headscarves seem to be contradicted by one Wikipedia article. I suggest a rewrite of the article from an expert's point of view. I'm not sure how to mark this article invalid.

Indented line

A quick search on traditions regarding this:

"Among proofs for the veil in the Sunna are the following authentic hadiths (traditional reports) of the Prophet – (s):

"Ayesha (r) reported that Asma’ the daughter of Abu Bakr (r) came to the Messenger of Allah (s) while wearing thin clothing. He approached her and said: 'O Asma’! When a girl reaches the menstrual age, it is not proper that anything should remain exposed except this and this. He pointed to the face and hands." [Abu Dawud]

Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni (1:349) explained that showing the face and hands are a specific dispensation within the general meaning of the hadith "All of the woman’s body is considered her nakedness [to those outside the mahram relationship or her husband]." (al-mar'atu `awra)

`Ayesha (r) said: "I used to enter the room where the Messenger of Allah (s) and my father (Abu Bakr) were later buried in without having my garment on me, saying it is only my husband and my father. But when 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab (r) was later buried in (the same place), I did not enter the room except that I had my garment on being shy from 'Umar.""

And of course these need a further interpretation - these are roughly translated accounts of rich Arabic texts. 211.30.98.210 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)ily

Deleted the Following

"Dressing modestly, therefore, is a trait of the believing men and women. The minimum requirements for a woman's dress is to lengthen her garment (33:59) and to cover her chest. Tyrannical Arab traditions have given a false impression that a woman must be covered from head to toe; such is not a Quranic or Islamic dress." Akohler ^Talk ^@ 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I have deleted an unsourced statement about there being some sort of legal requirement in Saudi Arabia for women to be covered in a certain way, etc. If that were the case, there were an awful lot of women breaking the law during my time there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by At612 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

no At612 its ture hijab has to be worn they buy law it might be a new law but its is a requirement sorry to say they don't support reilgons right just like france doesn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing this: "Note that these ayahs do not contain any prescription to cover women's hair." As the verse says 'khimār' which is the word for a piece of cloth the arab women wore covering their hair (but not their ears,neck and maybe bosom before this verse came). MatrixM (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unintentional pushing of fringe views

Upon review of the article, it seems as though it is promoting what are, in terms of history and historiography, fringe views. Specifically, the view of just a handful of authors that wearing the hijab wasn't widespread in early Islam is mentioned as being the views of just those authors in one part of the article, yet then presented as historical fact in another part of the article. While these views absolutely need to be represented for balance, what I suggest is the compilation of more sources in order to provide a more encompassing historical view of the topic.
To be exact, Hijab#Alternative_views makes it clear that the view that hijab was only for Muhammad's wives is the view of Karen Armstrong, Reza Aslan and Leila Ahmed - all notable writers on the topic though all known to lean toward a leftist, slightly feminist viewpoint (yes, even Aslan). That's OK. Notable views must be included and in that section of the aritcle, their view is presented in a neutral way.
Additionally, the Hijab#Historical_and_cultural_explanations_of_the_hijab section is well-written for the most part. Really, the article isn't that seriously flawed. The section gives an excellent overview of the origins of head covering and its existence in other cultures and civilizations. There is a serious problem with the first paragraph in Hijab#History, however.
The views which are described as "alternative views" earlier in the article are now presented as historical fact, with the paragraph stating definitively that hijab wasn't widely adopted in early Islamic history and it was only seen as compulsory for Muhammad's wives. A person with even a basic familiarity with historiography of the era - from authors of various different religions and eras - will know immediately that this is not the mainstream historical consensus on the topic. This is a fringe view. That doesn't mean it's right or wrong; it isn't the job of Wikipedia editors to make judgment calls like that. It just means that undue weight is being given to a fringe view. This is technically a violation of Wikipedia:Fringe theories and WP:UNDUE, though I don't think this is POV pushing. The reason is that in Western media and political circles, the views of people such as Armstrong, Aslan and Ahmed are pushed as "liberal" and "progressive." The thing is, academic circles don't lean that way.
The historical mainstream - approaching consensus - is that head covering was already known and common with pre-Islamic Arabs though neck covering wasn't (and breast covering wasn't common for slaves), and that with the advent of Islam covering the head became the accepted norm for women due to beliefs of its religious obligation and among some women, covering the face became a habit. This is well known not only from the traditional works of historians like Tabari and Tabarani, but also from religious works collecting the common verdicts of Muslim jurists among both Muhammad's companions and the students of those companions, such as the Musannafs of Ibn Abi Shaibah and Abdur Razzaq. I really don't know of other mainstream academics, especially historians, who hold the views of Armstrong (a philosopher), Aslan (a sociologist with a theology degree) and Ahmed (a theologian).
The point here isn't to argue which view is right or wrong. My only point is that this fringe view shouldn't be presented as historical fact. In the paragraph in question, every single citation is from one of these three authors with the exception of a Qur'an citation (which is a primary religious source) and one from Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair, which isn't related as it discusses the veil (niqab), not the headscarf (hijab). All views can be presented, but a minority view shouldn't be presented as historical fact - especially when the view of the strong majority isn't represented in that section at all.
My suggestion is that we (concerned editors) compile historical sources on the topic (neither Armstrong, Aslan or Ahmed are historians) and try to neutrally write a first paragraph, then leave the alternative view for a second paragraph while making it clear to readers that neither view is being championed by Wikipedia. Also, the primary source should be removed from the paragraph for the alternative view and no such primary sources should be included in this proposed new first paragraph, as it isn't for Wikipedia editors to decide which view is closer to the primary text.
This is time consuming and there is no rush but I hope more editors will take interest in writing a more historically representative paragraph for the section in question. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 03:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Fauzan, thanks for responding. I forgot all about this. Perhaps we and other concerned editors can start work in the next week or so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to work on it, but I will be quite busy in real life for the year, and may occasionally drop in to do some work. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-Muslim women

Opinions differ on whether or not Muslim women are required to veil in front of non-Muslim women. We can point out that the passage has been interpreted in different ways, but we can't alter a direct quotation in order to "clarify" something that is not in fact universally agreed upon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage in the West

In western society many westerners consider the forced wearing of the hijab upon woman and children as child abuse and a violation of woman's rights in terms of human rights and equality, of the western democratic tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.144.2 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Qu'ranic Verses and Relativism

A reference to a piece of cloth, Khimar, which at the time happened to be used for covering the head, is not necessarily a dress code commandment. The commandment is covering the bosom, and the Qu'ran happens to suggest utilizing a common garment that women already wore. It's like if I said, "When you play football/soccer, insert your shin guard into your socks." That doesn't mean socks are mandatory, just that they conveniently exist and would be a good place for your shin guard. If future players, for some odd reason, began wearing leggings, you'd insert the shin guard into the leggings. The shin guards are the important part. --Flurryofcrispycoffee (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hijabophobia

Does anyone have an opinion on whether Hijabophobia should be merged to here (to Hijab)? 64.134.64.190 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do Christian nuns and Muslim women cover their head for the same reasons?

Was there any sort of past commonality/belief, which said that women should be covered? Or is it just a coincidence that Catholic nuns cover up as well? CaribDigita (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On the page on nuns the word scarf is mentioned once. I hotlinked it to scarf and there I notice it links to headscarf and there I left a message in the "To do list" that we need help in making articles on this topic and more links to the different pages on related topics. Next to that, reading on those pages, especially the "talk" pages, it does become clear nuns wore it for a couple of reasons. Firstly: you see there are some very large, functional headscarfs that protect nuns from rain, wind, snow, or sun, especially in orders where nuns get out and help the poor. You see that the more streets get paved, labor is replaced by machines, cars become more common, that the scarfs reduce in size until today the scarf becomes symbolic and refers to those times and that you can still call upon sisters/nuns to help out with something. Secondly: in times of war and prosecution, the scarfs signalled to leave the nuns free passage to clean the battlefield of wounded so you wouldn't be hindered so much anymore by all these annoying, lamenting crushed people and could continue your joy of making war ;). --SvenAERTS (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

How to get the quality evaluation of the article and to do list appear at the top of the talk page?

Seems like a very actual topic these times. So how come these tools don't appear to get more ressources to expand the article and raise it's quality? Actually I thought they'd come automatically, in fact with every article? the wikipedia's toolkit really expanded a lot these last couple of years and I need to learn more on all these techniques and more. Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

ā

ā - a new english character ?? 212.88.22.174 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't we include a picture that more fairly represents the subject, e.g. this one? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijab for men

I don't see that the term hijab is applied to men's attire in RSs. There were two non-dead sources given for this notion in the article: a pamphlet by Zakir Naik and an opinion piece in the Guardian, whose evidence that the term is used to refer to men's attire was... a verbatim quote from our article. In contrast, encyclopedic entries on hijab don't seem to cover men's clothing. Hence, I've removed the section. This material can be covered under Modesty or Islam and clothing. Eperoton (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hijab files

There's no reason why Iranian and Afghan files should be sartorially overrepresented; one hijab file is enough for each. The Moroccan journalists are also not an adequate representation of the hijab, as only a few of them are actually wearing one. I've also appended the longstanding Somali file since it was substituted without explanation with one taken outside of Somalia. Likewise, I've appended the original Yemeni niqab, as the photoshopped derivative is blurry. I also don't understand why the Nigerian and Tuareg hijab files were substituted for other ones. The hijab in Nigeria is traditionally worn by the northern Muslim communities (the south is mainly Christian); this was clearly indicated in the initial group file but not in the singleton file. Contrarily, the headwraps worn by the Tuareg women at the Niger marriage ceremony are not the hijab but rather the traditional West African head tie, which is worn by local women of all faiths and ethnic groups. Please also note that per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, right justification is the default image placement; no fixed size scaling is also preferred per WP:THUMBSIZE. Soupforone (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: Ok, many points:

How are Iranian and Afghan files "sartorially overrepresented" when they showed vastly different sartorial styles? Showing multiple images from the same country helps to drive home the point that these images don't represent countries, but rather styles, which may vary more within a given country than between different countries. In particular, the Qom image and the sportswoman image were in the article before I got here, but I placed them in that section to illustrate the point that "Traditionally, Muslims have recognized many different forms of clothing as satisfying the demands of hijab." They both conform to the Iranian dress code in strikingly different ways, while the images you placed there all basically conform to traditional requirements in the same way.
The "Uzbek woman wearing a paranja burqa" has nothing to do with the veil types discussed in the text. It also has nothing to do with the "Contemporary practice" section. This style hasn't been widely worn in a long time.
The Moroccan journalists picture was placed where it was precisely because some of them aren't wearing a headscarf. It accompanies text that discusses views holding that a headscarf isn't required by the Quranic precepts on modesty. Why should images in this section show only women wearing headscarves?
I've substituted the Somali image because it's a better image of the same style, and please tell me why we shouldn't have an image of Muslims in Europe here? The image you put back is an ugly photo with no composition and one woman seemingly picking her nose.
The Nigerian image you added is not as bad, but it's still not nearly as well done as the one I put in instead. I don't understand your argument about north and south. Are you suggesting the girl could be a Christian? Per image caption, she's training to be a midwife, not a nun.
The Tuareg image you added now is much better than the one you added before. In fact, I added it myself earlier today. I replaced it by an illustration of a passage in the text, discussing headwraps that don't cover the neck and the disagreement on whether this is proper hijab. Actually, it occurs to me that the image of AbuSulayman you added, while not exactly representative of Saudi women, works well to illustrate the same point.
The "Moroccan girls" is another poorly done photo, and it adds nothing to what we already have in the article. I'm really puzzled why you want to put images like this in an article that's seen by about a million readers per year. When someone takes a photo with facial expressions like that where I'm from, the subjects normally don't even want their friends to see it.
Lastly, thanks for pointing out WP:THUMBSIZE, but the answer is not to make images the same size regardless of content. What we need to use instead is "upright=scaling factor". Eperoton (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Iranian and Afghan files were overrepresented garb-wise because there were two such hijab files for them, whereas one is sufficient for each. The point is to show the hijab traditions around the world, not to focus on any specific area (there are templates against this sort of thing, like Template:Globalize). Further, the Uzbek paranja is a type of burqa, which is discussed in that section. The Moroccan journalists file was cropped from a larger group file, and it is not in itself informative without any extra data on the students' religious backgrounds. The non-hijab wearers could just as easily be local Jews or even Christians as Muslims, whereas there is no such ambiguity with the two hijab-wearing girls. Moreover, the original Somali hijab file shows the local sartorial tradition, like the other files - the one woman in it also clearly has her thumb tip against her upper lip (as CTRL+ shows). As regards the Nigerian hijab, the singleton file is actually not bad - it was apparently taken during the same session as the group file and appears to show the same hijab-wearing girl, so I suppose it could perhaps work. The previous Tuareg hijab was meant to show the face-veil, but this one is on the regular hijab. I don't follow on the Moroccan girls, though - their mien doesn't appear to be much different from that of the Nigerian hijab wearer [1] [2]. As to the placement, IMAGELOCATION indicates toward the top that typically images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. For the size, I used the upright factor per THUMBSIZE - the default size automatically multiplies the width by 0.75. Soupforone (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: :

How is the globalize template relevant here? Are you saying the article "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" if it shows contrasting dress styles in some of the countries?
I'm not particularly concerned about including an image of the Afghan burqa. Everyone knows what they look like. However, showing an Uzbek paranja under "Contemporary practice" seems to be a serious misrepresentation. This style of dress was rooted out in Uzbekistan in Soviet times (see Hujum). The series of news stories I cited further in this article on the new "hujum" campaign in Uzbekistan talks about forcing women to remove their headscarves. It doesn't mention the paranja. This travel guide [3] suggests seeing one in a Bukhara museum, and your photo also looks like a museum display. Do you have any evidence that there's been significant use of it in recent times?
Moroccan Jews and Christians comprise less than 1% of the population, and the caption didn't refer to religious affiliation. In any case, it's easy to confirm that many Moroccan university students don't cover their heads. This is what the image represents. Do you have a better suggestion for an image of this kind to include in this section?
I'm aware that the Somali woman isn't picking her nose, but that's what she seems to be doing at the resolution of the image shown to the reader. This image also violates basic principles of photography. Most of it is taken up by furniture and figures whose details can't be meaningfully made out at the resolution displayed, and the main subjects are shown off-center. Do you find something objectionable about showing an image of Muslims in Europe in general, or Somali women in London in particular?
Can you really not see a difference between the easily misinterpretable half-expressions on the Moroccan photo and the professional-quality portrait of the Nigerian girl? I don't find this photo as bad as the Somali one, but I don't see why we want to include this problematic image. What exactly does it add to the article, aside from showing another one of the innumerable sub-cultures that wear hijab? One shows a plain loosely-fitting scarf, the other a tightly-fitting one. We already have examples of these in the lead image.
Right-justified is the default statement for a single image. Per MOS, multiple images "can" be staggered, and that it certainly standard practice on WP. I deleted a comment to that effect from my previous reply, because staggering the images may interfere with text justification in the "Alternative views" section, but staggering is called for further down below. Eperoton (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The globalize template pertains to imbalances, as does the undue weight policy. If Iranian and Afghan Muslim women were the primary wearers of the hijab, then that would be another matter. However, since the garment is worn throughout the Islamic world, there is no valid reason why they should be singled out. The paranja is a burqa and its actually under the appropriate burqa and niqab area rather than the deveiling passage way at the bottom. If general readers indeed already have an idea what the burqa is (which I'm not certain that they do), the file can be jettisoned. The woman in the Somali file is not picking her nose nor does it even look like she is - she quite visibly has her thumb (not her index) against her upper lip. This is immaterial, though, since per MOS:IMAGES legitimate objections to a file include image relevance/appropriateness, quality, offensiveness, and licensing, not demonstrably wrong impressions. This original file also has similar content as the non-local one and was shot at a comparable angle too. The details of the hijab wearers in the background aren't any more important than are those in the non-local file or in the file of the hijab-wearing villagers in Pakistan [4]. Anyway, for the sake of congeniality, I've substituted it with a singleton file of a hijab-wearing woman [5].

Jews and Christians do represent a small percentage of the general population of Morocco, but they proportionately comprise many of the local non-hijab wearers. Therefore, this does not rule out that the non-hijab wearers adhere to other faiths; and if they are not Muslims, then the fact that they are not wearing the hijab is meaningless here. The Moroccan girls in the hijab are thus more appropriate, as there is no such ambiguity vis-a-vis their religion. A juxtaposition of their bearing with that of the hijab-wearing Nigerian girl also clearly shows that they are little different [6] [7] - so if one has a weird mien (which I frankly don't see), so does the other. As regards the general file positioning, MOS:IMAGELOCATION indicates that "images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, left can be used." Left placement is therefore actually the exception, not the default. Soupforone (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Since we seem to be converging towards resolving main points of concern, I'll set aside our disagreements about the underlying rationales. My outstanding major concern is having an image of women without a head cover in the section that discusses justifications for not wearing one. In the interest of quick resolution, I'll use another image there. It needs to be where the Moroccan girls are now, and since you seem to feel strongly about keeping that image, I'll move them to an earlier section. Eperoton (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider removing the Qom image. It shows a man in the foreground, and based on its filename, seems to be making a point. Not useful for illustrating a general section. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Not only that, as shown in this article, it draws a misleading parallel between the woman's dress, which is a common type of lay conservative dress, and the man's dress, which seems to be an ulema garb. I've replaced it with another image of similar dress type. Eperoton (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note, Queen Rania only occasionally appears without a headdress - she often wears the hijab too [8]. Aside from that, it looks decent; nice job. Soupforone (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Legal enforcement in Iran

@MehrdadFR: There were some problems large and small with your edit, but it also added useful content, so I'd like to work with you on addressing them instead of reverting it.

The biggest problem was removal of sourced content about the penal code. I've confirmed them with stronger sources and I'm restoring it with further details.
Per WP:CITE, please provide enough bibliographical details about the Ramezani citation to locate it.
I'm assuming that the word clashes in "clashes against those who were perceived to wear improper clothing" was just a translation issue. The word "clashes" is used when both sides physically fight each other, and the combination with "against" is not idiomatic, so I've changed it to "vigilante harassment" based on what I see in the other cited source. If your source says something different, we'll need to do more work per NPOV.
The number of the article of the penal code in your citation is different from the number given by the RSs I'm citing. This needs clarification. Is it simply a different (volume-based) numbering scheme?
The phrasing based on Beeman's book is oddly imprecise in its impersonal construction (hijab obviously implies different things to different people). I can't access the cited pages in preview, so I'm requesting a quote to help improve the phrasing if needed.
The sentence that starts with "Being bareheaded" and describes the consequences of violating hijab as possible verbal caution is unsourced and it contradicts both the letter of the law and the practice of its enforcement as described in the cited sources. If it refers to a different historical period than those sources, we need to clarify that with a citation.

Also, please note that per WP:NOENG you may be asked to provide translations of quotes from the non-English sources you cite. I don't see a need for that at the moment, but it may be needed if we find disagreements between the sources. Eperoton (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've looked up the penal code in the original [9] and a translation (of questionable reliability) [10], and it looks like the statement that "law requires all women and men to dress modestly in public" crosses over the line of interpretation of a primary source, which is disallowed by WP:PRIMARY. We can report the specific expression used in this source, but we would need a secondary source to connect violating "public prudency" (which is a very odd translation of "عفت عمومی") to dress code. Eperoton (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Eperoton:, thanks for your attention and also for a hard work in this article.

There are indeed issues in current text related to the penal code and I'll explain it. To be honest, different numbers of law articles have been confusing for me also, and first I was thinking that its because of different dates (you cited books about law from 1983, while I put law from 1996). After searching archives of Iranian parliament, I've found the original one from 14 November 1983 (23 Aban 1362, its formatted as "1362/08/23" on upper-left side), and here is the text:

‌ماده 102 - هر کس علناً در انظار و اماکن عمومی و معابر تظاهر به عمل حرامی نماید

علاوه بر کیفر عمل تا 74 ضربه شلاق محکوم می‌گردد و در‌صورتی که مرتکب عملی شود که

نفس عمل دارای کیفر نمی‌باشد ولی عفت عمومی را جریحه دار نماید، فقط تا 74 ضربه

شلاق محکوم می‌گردد.

‌تبصره - زنانی که بدون حجاب شرعی در معابر و انظار عمومی ظاهر شوند، به تعزیر تا

74 ضربه شلاق محکوم خواهند شد.

This give us 102 as article number, not 141 or 638. Still, I've found some Persian scholarly reviews about article 638 [11] so number which you (actually books) may be correct. I think the best solution for this wiki text is to put "article about offenses against public moral", not 102, 141 or 638, to avoid further confusion. Regarding text in article, here are few issues:

"Strict observance of Islamic hijab", given in Bucar:2011, is incorrect arbitrary translation. The most precise translation of hijab-e shar'i (حجاب شرعی) would be "proper clothing" or simply "dress code". To say "proper hijab" would be confusing because its associated with headscarf, but Iranian women's dress code also includes overcoat.
Law does not mention anything about "veiled head", "hair", "hands" or "legs", in relation to either women’s or men’s clothing. Also, nothing regarding headscarf's shape, color, transparency, material, tying, covered parts or veiled/unveiled extent is specified. I do not understand why did you put template [clarification needed] after "without mentioning specific types of garment", because you referenced the same point in another sentence: "leaving the definition of proper hijab ambiguous". Its also obvious from a law text. Sentence which starts with "New regulation issued in 1988" should be removed because it can not be verified by law, and its obviously false because it claims use of makeup or clothes with foreign words or pictures is banned, and that is really absurd. Iran is among seven largest markets for cosmetics in the World, and it has been the same even thirty years ago. By assuming good faith about author intentions and considering conservative female politicians avoid makeup, I'm sure Elizabeth M. Bucar confused Persian guidelines for governmental clothing in 1988 with national-wide dress code.
According to the text, people may assume article was/is only about women, while its actually applied to both women and men. By first part of the 1983 article, punishment for improper male clothing is the same, up to 74 lashes (reminder: "up to", not "to"; 74 is maximum). Beside the fact law applied same to both, it was changed in meanwhile (see art. 141) so possibility of physical punishment for women is excluded and replaced with fines ranging from 50,000 to 500,000 rials (2 to 20 USD).
Law article covers all offenses against public moral, e.g. carrying nude posters, singing vulgar songs and so on. It was not adopted for female dress.
Improper clothing basically refers to more serious social violations like public nudity, toplessness and shirtlessness, but presented in this way people may assume that the most severe punishment is actually for female headscarf.
The most serious problem is combination of many omissions; first we have article about hijab which is largely about headscarf, then we have ridiculous Westernocentric map (hijab equalized headscarf again, only Muslim countries have dress code, and mask-prevalent areas like Arabia and Afghanistan are shown more liberal then Iran), then there's "Compulsion and pressure" section according to which only Iran and two other countries are "pressuring" women (I guess Western countries do not "pressure" women to wear bra), and finally inside it we have largest text about Iran which deals about law article relevant to general offenses against public moral. That's why removed everything related to penal code, its very misleading. Can you imagine section "Compulsion and pressure" inside wiki article Bra or Lingerie, with cherry-picked laws against nudity from few US states where person may be sentenced up to five years imprisonment (30 times longer than in Iran)? Perhaps you're not even aware how misleading it is right now, a serious violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:WORLDVIEW.
Regarding verbal caution for being bareheaded in urban public places, its not original research, its a fact that can be easily verified. It does not contradict the letter of the law because you confused "proper clothing" with hijab as simple headscarf (rousari), and also attributed the most harsh punishment. Does it sound logical that losing headscarf (strong wind, motor ride) is as serious as running fully naked in the street? There are official instructions for promoting proper clothing (Strategies for promotion of chastity, 2005), supported by governmental cultural programs (para. 26), and its clearly stated that any kind of imposing must be avoided (para. 37):

37ـ توسعه و تنوع بخشی به الگو‌های مناسب حجاب و تبلیغ آن توسط رسانه‌ها به منظور

اقناع روحیه تنوع طلبی و حس زیبا شناختی جوانان ضمن ترویج و تشویق چادر به عنوان

حجاب برتر و پرهیز از تحمیل و اجباری کردن یک الگوی ثابت از حجاب؛

Here's quote from Beeman:

For many centuries, women in Iran have practiced modesty by wearing the chador, a semicircular piece of dark cloth that is wrapped expertly around the body and head, and gathered at the chin. This garment is both wonderfully convenient, since it affords a degree of privacy, allowing one to wear virtually anything underneath. But it is restricting, since it must be held shut with one hand (some women cleverly use their teeth in awkward moments). Since the revolution, an alternate form of acceptable dress has emerged of the kind described above by Azadeh Moaveni's coutourier in Lipstick Jihad—a long dress with full-length opaque stockings, a long-sleeved coat, and a head scarf covering the hair. The dress has gradually evolved into a thin shoulder-to-ankle smock called a manto after the French word manteau ("overcoat"). The head scarf has been transformed into a hood modeled after a similar garment in North Africa called a magna'eh. In adopting this dress, women have been wonderfully inventive. The manto, though dark in color, is often made of silk or other fine fabric, embroidered, finely tailored, with elegant closures. Women wear it over jeans or other Western fashions. The magna'eh may also be of satin and turned out in fashionable colors like eggplant or dark teal. (Beeman:2005:151-152)

Its actually relevant to overcoat (often neglected in hijab=headscarf scheme), not to full sentence. My mistake, but I have more books and works so I'll insert it. Point is this: in institutions, government offices, mosques and sacred places, women wear khimar+overcoat or chador, and in other public places they're far more fashionable. It's kind of irony that all that it grouped under "Islamic dress", because former ones wouldn't be allowed to enter mosque in such clothes (the same goes for males in street-common Aloha shirts). I'm 100% sure that I have Ramezani's work in my computer, just it isn't named so I'll have to search file by file. Another issue is that as far as I remember its downloaded broken PDF without proper page numbers, but I may still provide you requested quotations (you can verify by automatic translation) or whole work. Considering your hard work on this article, professionalism about sources and affability, I won't make any changes for now. Still, please consider my objections above, thanks. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@MehrdadFR: Thanks for your thoughtful and courteous response. I have no interest in spreading misconceptions, and it's quite possible that some RSs contain misleading statements. However, the actions we take to address these issues have to follow WP policies. We can cite additional RSs to provide context (for example, comparing Iranian public morality law with Western ones or comparing the meaning of "hijab" in Persian and English). We can also cite additional RSs to give additional details and alternative formulations, "proportionally" reflecting contradictory views, per WP:NPOV. What we can't do is "overrule" RSs based on our opinion that they're wrong. Our opinion may be correct and convincingly argued, but doing so would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I have many WP articles with sourced but misleading content on my to-do list. Fixing them in a policy-compliant way has been time-consuming. The topic under consideration here is certainly a complex one, involving an interplay between changing cultural norms and fluctuations of culture politics, and the current paragraph clearly doesn't do justice to it. Your help with improving it would be appreciated. If it grows too long for this section, we'll spin off a separate article on hijab in Iran (with this or some other title).

On specific issues:

I'm pretty sure refs 75 and 76 refer to the 1996 law, but I agree that we don't have to mention the number of the law article (or even its title).
The "clarification needed" tag was confusingly placed — it refers to the first part of the sentence, and specifically the numbering discrepancy.
Bucar's book is a solid source by any policy-based criterion I can think of. If some of it is wrong, we'll have to address that by citing other sources.
I've seen many photos of Iranian street fashions, but I've also seen multiple sources which reported stricter standards and harsher punishments than your formulation suggested. For example, Kelly & Breslin write on the cited page: "in practice, women have been punished for all of the following: showing part of one's hair, using cosmetics, wearing sunglasses, wearing a tight or short manteau (coat or gown), showing skin above the wrist or ankle, showing neckline, and wearing boots over (rather than under) trousers." Mainstream news sources (e.g., [12] [13] [14]) report punishments beyond verbal caution even in recent times. I think we need to give more details about the changes of policy over the years, and if some of these RSs have fallen prey to misinformation or bias, we need to cite sources to reflect alternative viewpoints per NPOV.
Regarding bibliographical details, you can just give enough to enable someone to locate the source: e.g., volume/number or year/month. If you don't mind emailing me the article, I would appreciate that too. I'm not naive enough to rely on machine translation, but I would be interested to read it when I finally get around to learning some Persian. Eperoton (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton:, yes I know, at least one good editor in recent times who insists on scholarly sources, not one of those who rely argumentum ad googlum + argumentum ad populum system (means "if there's a lot of yellow journalism articles on Google, it must be true"). I'm well familiar with wiki rules about WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, also about WP:PRIMARY, but original legal text is still stronger (more reliable) then secondary source. Perhaps the best situation would be to put them both in one reference, means law plus academic book, and reword English quote to coincide original Persian text. Regarding work by Ramezani, there are good news: I found both an article available online, and also its bibliographical details (note: "حجاب در ايران از انقلاب اسلامي تا پايان جنگ تحميلي" = Hijab dar Iran az Enqelab-e Eslami ta payan Jang-e Tahmili = "Hijab in Iran from the Islamic Revolution to the end of the Imposed war"). The Journal, given at the end of article as source, is reliable [15][16][17]. Considering details from law, IMHO the best option would be "Dress code" section inside Iranian clothing (now its absolute zero by content, and also title should be changed). In Beeman:2005, there is a text similar to Kelly & Breslin, and I can copy-paste it to you. It would be hard for me to find something like negation about makeup claims in Persian sources, but when I get time, I'll try to find something more and present it to you here. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@MehrdadFR: Yes, the supposed quote from the 1983 penal code in Bucar's book in a clear case of mistranslation (an odd one, since Bucar knows Persian, judging from her bibliography). Even my rudimentary Persian is sufficient to understand this phrase and see that it says nothing resembling "strict observance". I support your proposal, and in fact the phrase "زنانی که بدون حجاب شرعی" is the same in both versions of the law, so we can use the other sources to inform our choice of phrasing.

Thank you for the information about Ramezani's article and the journal. Judging from the article about Ramezani on German WP (if this is the same person [18]), we wouldn't able to use his writings on history without attribution if the journal itself wasn't a RS.

I didn't quite understand your proposal toward the end (except for expanding Iranian clothing, which I'm all for), but I'll try to clean up the paragraph based on what we have so far. Eperoton (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton:, I'm OK with it, you have free hands for editing because your English is far better. If you're refering to Beeman's quote (as part which you didn't quite understand), here it is:

Virtually the sole limitation on female employment is that women must
maintain modest dress or hejab in the workplace. Islam requires that both
women and men adopt modest dress that does not inflame carnal desire.
For men this means eschewing tight pants, shorts, short-sleeved shirts, and
open collars. Iranians view women's hair as erotic, and so covering both the
hair and the female form are the basic requirements of modesty. This precludes
women from some physically active professions. In earlier years, revolutionary
guards accosted women who violated the dress codes in public,
including wearing makeup. Today these attacks are rare, although periodic
backlashes by the Revolutionary Guard and the conservative judiciary are
troubling. Such attacks can be violent and sudden, and all the more surprising
because they are much rarer than in the years following the revolution. (Beeman:2005:151)

Claims about makeup are very weird for me, but considering Iran is a large country and I was young in revolution years, such cases may really happened. But anyway, it isn't too much relevant to article about clothing. --MehrdadFR (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MehrdadFR. This is informative, but I'm not yet sure what to do with this material. For now, I'm just condensing the paragraph we have here. Eperoton (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Men In Hijab Article?

I propose that Men In Hijab be merged into Hijab. I think that the content in the Men In Hijab article can more easily be explained in the context of the Hijab article, and the Hijab article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Men In Hijab will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Margrave of Miskatonic (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose All the news stories in that article are from a span of a few days. There's no evidence that this is anything more than a short-lived internet meme. Not notable enough to cover in this article. Eperoton (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

infusion of reality

This needs an infusion of reality :D.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 04:24, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

See now, that's the problem. (Commenting on recent edits.) I haven't been to this page for a little bit (day job gets in the way) and now it's more out of control. Saying that Hijab is a modern word is just plain wrong. And leads to the even more fundamental inaccuracies. The orginal meaning of "Hijab" is a the concept whose discussion starts in the second sentence. The first sentence is just plain ill-informed. The reason for that ill-information is that modern Muslims in the Western world, often converts or second generation Muslims, have made so much noise about one of their icons--the head-scarf, a modernised and Westernized version of the Arab "Djellaba" and called it "hijab" so often that even Muslims now use the word for that headscarf. While common, this is a very troubling development.

Now. The above para is my POV. Next I have to figure out how to separate the facts from my opinion and edit the article accordingly.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

You are right iFaqeer. I hope you did not see my adding of the "types of Hijab" table (which the more I look at, the more I find it to be ugly) as trying to accentuate merely the physical aspects of hijab. In fact, the outfit is merely as smaller part of the whole attitude the word should encompass. You are correct in saying this is what westerners notice and which is probably why the article heads in that direction. It is also easier to address the physical since the other virtues associated with hijab are so intertwined with a whole interpretation of the Qur'an. In an effort to combat people merely thinking of it as a physical attribute I am going to move the table I added to a page called "hijab related garments, or some other name and link to it from the "How do people wear hijab?" section. I realized I probably helped to make it seem more physical (despite not meaning to) and therefore must remedy that. -gren

Hah, I had only read the one section about "how do we wear Hijab" when I added my table... I didn't expect that the whole article was devoted to that. -gren

Thank you for being so reasonable!! :D. That's the beauty of the Wikipedia; working together makes for great entries. And often what someone else is doing is reminding one of something one already knows—or wants to convey but doesn't require figure out how. I know it happens to me a lot of times.

One small quibble, though. Or maybe put this way: I wasn't even getting into the physical versus the more spiritual aspects of the concept. I was hung up on how the physical aspect is currently misunderstood—and/or misapplied. And not just by westerners, either. Sometimes I feel some parts of the Muslim community manipulate the issue to forward their own agenda.

I see that what you are saying is an even better way of thinking of it. And I see you have removed the first sentence. Good work. I think I will add a heading to some of the intro. And a new first sentence or explanation at the top.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:05, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)