Talk:Intimate parts in Islam

Comments

The article needs citations and it should represent the non-hijabi point of view, instead of claiming the hadith viewpoint without reference. — Emiellaiendiay 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This article contain some false information and does not represent a wide point of view of the Muslim World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salah-Q (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do these people insane beliefs? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.150.46 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Most Muslims hold that entire body of the woman, except her face and hands, is part of her awrah, so those are the parts of her body that must be covered during prayer and in public settings.[25][26][27] Most Salafi Muslims believe that a woman's awrah in front of unrelated men is her entire body including her face and hands.[28] [29][30][31][32][33][34]"

Most of these refs are deleted (scribd.com) or dead links. Noloop (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the information on this page is completely false, and I suggest that individuals who feel that they are knowledgeable enough to speak on behalf of Islam and Muslims around the world make sure that they get their facts right before doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.99.122 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalization

Should it be spelt 'Awrah' or 'awrah'? Consistency would be an improvement. Junuxx (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed all occurences to italic and lower case (except at the start of a sentence of course). Junuxx (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Arabic terminology

This is not a primer in Arabic language, but an English-language encyclopedia. I suggest we merge this article with Intimate parts or rename it to Intimate parts (Islam). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I waited 6 days, and no one objected, so I went ahead and made the move. Peter and Roscelese, if you're following me around the wiki, please comment on this.
• My aim was to make this more about how Muslims feel the human body's intimate parts must be treated (e.g., covered from improper viewing by others) - and less of an exhaustive treatise on all the meanings of the foreign language term Awrah. We have Wiktionary for definitions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, 'Awrah' is a technical word and it is better to leave it untranslated, rather than translating it to 'intimate parts' سعید رحیمی (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

SEA Games 2015 Controversial

Is anyone going to add this to the Wikipedia? StandNThrow (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Intimate parts in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060503084427/http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org:80/english/books/socialsystem/chapter_08.html to http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/socialsystem/chapter_08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intimate parts in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016174&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAIELayout
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021155858/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544886&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544886&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023163645/http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-13525475 to http://daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-13525475
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701174545/http://seekingilm.com/archives/44 to http://seekingilm.com/archives/44
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410230335/http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/the_lawful_and_prohibition_in_islam/ch3s1p7.htm to http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/the_lawful_and_prohibition_in_islam/ch3s1p7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intimate parts in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128133435/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=4835&CATE=368 to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=4835&CATE=368

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

singing in islam

This section is contradictory. FIRST off it says women AND men can sing in Islam. Then gives an example of this - at a festival. Pakistan has a national anthem which is sung by women e.g. women cricketers. Clearly there are many other women that sing in Islamic countries. YET someone has added some unreferenced bits after saying women should not sing. There is nothing written about men singing with an alluring or attractive voice? Does that same proscription NOT also apply to men?? It does with clothing and sumptuary laws apply also to men - not to wear clothing that enflames passion outside of certain circumstances. This needs to be better written as at the moment there is pointing to a random person's individual opinion and not a islamic scholar's well grounded basis on the quran or hadith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

this should also be linked with Islamic_music — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian meaning)

Hi,

@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) I had requested User Austronesier to take initiative in disambiguating Indonesian /Malaysian sense of word Aurat. But may be he is focused somewhere else I am doing my third attempt of disambiguating in good faith. Probably I am not well versed enough in confusing unfriendly disambiguation rules, Please feel free to revert changes made by me in good faith. If I make mistakes I will invite more people to help me out in this task.

Steps taken up til now

• Created and Redirected Aurat ('awrah) & Aurat (awrah) to Intimate parts in Islam

• Proposed / next steps
  • Adding info about Malaysian and Indonesian usage in Etymology section
  • Attempting hat note templates explaining Aurat ('awrah) & Aurat (awrah) pages are redirected to Intimate parts in Islam and to see Aurat (disambiguation) for other usage.

Just for information @PamD:, @Austronesier:

Bookku (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

awrah awrat usage as woman

@Solavirum:

By the way Intimate parts in Islam#Etymology section has following information (not properly cited) but perhaps it exists (and not added by me so some one else to reaching to that info from somewhere).

In Persian and Kurdish as well as Urdu, the word 'awrat (Persian: عورت‎) derived from the Arabic 'awrah, had been used widely to mean "woman"

Traditionally the word 'awrat, alongside the word za'ifeh (which derives from Arabic ḍa'īf (ضعيف), meaning weak) has been associated with femininity and women who lived under the protection of a man. In modern-day Iran, using the two words ( 'awrah and za'ifah) to refer to women is uncommon and is considered sexist language. It is considered sexist but likely to be there which needs further confirmatory discussion.

In Turkish, avrat is an often derogatory term for 'woman' or 'wife' This sentence is un-referenced but some one seems to have added.

Perhaps this point need to have discussion and disambiguation for use of word as Aurat (female human entity)

For information @Staszek Lem:

Bookku (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of above mentioned info seems to be added by probably by Malay user Idris Fatih in 2009 and about Turkish by user Universal Life in 2011

Just for info and record Bookku (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

'Afrat' in 'Sorani Kurdish'

Came across two mentions , - though wikipedia would need better reference level of word 'afrat', seems is in use in sorani Kurdish.

• Vocabulary Reference PDF on sites.fas.harvard.edu

Bookku (talk)

References

Hat note update

Hat note as following is added

"'awrah (Arabic) and Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian nomenclature for Intimate parts in Islam)" redirects here. For Aurat (Women of India, Pakistan, Sorani Kurdish (Afrat), Azeri (arvad) ), see Aurats. For Aurat (Disambiguation), see Aurat.

At some point of time in future if common sense prevails and article title Aurat gets allotted to Aurat (Women of India, Pakistan, Sorani Kurdish (Afrat), Azeri (arvad) ) hat note can be improved to better common sense version like below.

"'awrah (Arabic) and Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian nomenclature for Intimate parts in Islam)" redirects here. For Aurat (Women of India, Pakistan, Sorani Kurdish (Afrat), Azeri (arvad) ), see Aurat. For other uses of Aurat, see Aurat (Disambiguation).

Bookku (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@R'n'B:, issue of hatnote is already mentioned at talk page. If you know the topic you can be the best person to improve and help out the hatnote. Thanks Bookku (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Actually, I know nothing at all about the topic, but I do know how to use the {{redirect}} template. The simplest format is {{Redirect|Title}}, where "Title" is the title of a Wikipedia page that is a redirect to the article on which the template appears. What you have written above ("'awrah (Arabic) and Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian nomenclature for Intimate parts in Islam)") is not the title of any Wikipedia page. Please see Template:Redirect/doc for additional details. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Thanks now I am partially understanding " 'the' curator's dilemma", since you are already here, pl. see if you can help understand and solve it further.

1) Is it safe to assume there is no 'curator side' issue @ 2nd part " For Aurat (Women of India, Pakistan, Sorani Kurdish (Afrat), Azeri (arvad) ), see Aurats. For Aurat (Disambiguation), see Aurat. "

2) For first part is it ok if we use Template:Redirect2 and create redirectional title Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian language) for second redirect. 'awrah already exists for first redirect. - Or some one will take objection saying there is no 'single language' called (Malaysian and Indonesian language)

I foresee another dilemma at other article because article Aurats will be receiving multiple redirects and I don't see any hatnote template for more than 2 redirects. But this dilemma can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote later.

As of now your answer to point no 2 is likely help clear the way a little bit so awaiting for the same.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: If you have changed hat notes after knowing all nuances then I would have no arguments, but sorry, as of now I am not sure that the changes you made are after full understanding nuances from all sides and that your changes are accurate enough?

Is haste really important to not wait longer enough for more discussions to happen is for you to decide. Thanks, and best wishes Bookku (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Haste" happens when errors are made resulting in untruthful hatnotes that raise red flags on patrols. These errors need to be promptly fixed. If you can fix them in a way that doesn't cause errors, I won't bother you. Rule #1: When you say that Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian nomenclature for Intimate parts in Islam) redirects to here, make sure that Aurat (Malaysian and Indonesian nomenclature for Intimate parts in Islam) literally redirects to here, and is not a red link. wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Such loosely related redirects from other languages should not even exist in the first place; see WP:RFOREIGN. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Awrat

• 19:40, 22 May 2012 Ed Poor moved page Awrah to Intimate parts (Islam) (The term awrah is not familiar to most English speakers)

If the word is actually supposed to be Awrah, then why does Awrat redirect to here? Is "awrat" a misspelling of "awrah"? wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Both are correct transliterations of the same Arabic word. Depending on the romanisation scheme, of which there are multiple for Arabic, some transliterate the final letter tāʼ marbūṭah as "h" or as "t". --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting small help

Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the related languages you know well.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Refs

• Umar, Hasbi. Adopted Children in the Perspective of National Law and Islamic Law in Indonesia. Vol. 2 No. 7 (2023): Journal of Social Research. https://doi.org/10.55324/josr.v2i7.1157 Second paragraph on page 2501 :".. In the view of lughah and mufassirin experts, .. .. ."

Bookku (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Inauthentic Hadith attached in this Wikipedia article

Any respectable Muslim scholar would know that this Hadith is inauthentic, hence using this to justify the definition of the female Awrat would be a grave error:

"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wearing thin clothes. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands.

Abu Dawud said: This is a mursal tradition (i.e. the narrator who transmitted it from 'Aishah is missing) Khalid b. Duraik did not see 'Aishah."

I'm attaching the link to this particular Hadith below so that you guys are able to see for yourself.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4104 ChickenSoup54 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChickenSoup54 In Wikipedia what we are supposed to refer is WP:Secondary sources as WP:Reliable sources. We generally prioritize university academics in related field of study.

One of the source used is (available on google books)

• Amer, Sahar. What is Veiling?. United Kingdom, University of North Carolina Press, 2014. Page 33 - 34
• Sahar Amer is professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Sydney.

You can go through page 33-34 at google books and suggest update accordingly.

Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing good sourcing for this. Does the North Carolina Press sources reference this particular hadith? The other sources are both blogs. If this is important, there should be reliable, secondary sources for it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, Sahar Amer, What is Veiling? North Carolina Press page 33-34 seems very much referring to this Hadith's centrality for Muslim Scholars to insist upon covering of body parts.
• Word "shameful body parts (awra)" is used on page 32.
• Sahar seem to express surprise that even though Hadith narration seem doubtful enough still how that hadith is getting central importance among some traditional Muslim scholarship for veiling of body parts.
• I could have quoted couple of paragraphs of Sahar but reading of some complete pages may be more helpful to understand what Sahar is trying to say and how to paraphrase it and whether present sentence in the article is representative enough or need to be paraphrased differently.
• Sahar seems to have referred Linda Clarke (2003) "Hijab according to the Hadith: text and interpretation" - seem to be part of editor board edited volume on veiling topic. Clarke seems to be Professor of Islamic Studies at Concordia University- but one may need to research Clarke 's connection with Concordia separately if one wishes so, since there may be more professors having same name. But since Sahar herself is professor of Arabic and Islamic studies, I suppose one can believe her.

Bookku (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

An excerpt from the book "What is Veiling" - Sahar Amer (pg 62)

"Linda Clarke has pointed out this report’s questionable reliability despite its inclusion in Abu Dawud’s canonical late ninth-­century hadith collection. For one, it is cited only in his collection and is not attested anywhere else. It thus exhibits a feature marking possible fraudulent reporting according to the complex evaluation system of authentification developed by classical hadith scholars. '''''Moreover, this report is cited by Abu Dawud, who lived in the ninth

century, two hundred years after the Prophet’s death, and is not supported by an unbroken chain of reporters going all the way back to the Prophet or to one of his companions to guarantee its authenticity. Finally, it is the only hadith cited in Abu Dawud’s chapter “That of

a woman’s adornment that may [be allowed to] appear,” as though he was desperately trying to find a report to support his interpretation of Q 24:31, or perhaps, his own views on women’s proper attire. For these three important reasons, Clarke has concluded that Abu Dawud’s report cannot be considered an indisputable proof of Muslim women’s requirement to veil their entire bodies except the face and hands." ChickenSoup54 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

An excerpt from Khaled Abou El Fadl's fatwa on hijab:

"Please note that in Shari'ah sources, there is no chapter in jurisprudence entitled, The Hijab. This is a much later development and its first appearance were in books of adab (ie. books on social manners and customs) written to the laity and not in jurisprudential treatises of fiqh. The issue traditionally treated in jurisprudential sources is the 'awra (or the part that should be covered) of a woman IN PRAYER. Now, mind you, the rules for 'ibadat (acts of ritual) are very different than the rules for mu'amalat (rules for social interaction). Some ill-learned individuals have taken the discourses on 'awra in prayer and attempted to generalize them to every day interactions. The solemnity and sacredness when in the presence of the Lord is a very different condition and contingency than when one is in the presence of other human beings. Also, please note that in books of tafsir or Qur'anic interpretation, we will often find a discussion about the event in the final year of the Prophet's message when the hijab was decreed upon the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). And, there is a well-established legal principle that what has been decreed for the family of the Prophet is not generalizable beyond the family of the Prophet. Having said all of this, as discussed in my aforementioned halaqa, juristic discourses on women's 'awra, in and out of prayer, is far more nuanced and diverse than most contemporary Muslims assume."

I've attached the link to his fatwa below:

https://www.searchforbeauty.org/2017/06/05/on-the-hijab-in-our-day-and-age-and-addressing-past-scholarly-opinions-on-the-hijab/

I'll make sure to attach any academic papers or documents I find regarding this issue in the future.

Khaled Abou El Fadl's academic credentials:

"Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl is one of the world’s leading authorities on Shari'ah, Islamic law and Islam, and a prominent scholar in the field of human rights. He is the Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law where he teaches International Human Rights; Islamic Jurisprudence; Political Asylum and Refugee Law; The Trafficking of Human Beings: Law and Policy; Political Crimes and Legal Systems; and Muslims, Race and Law. He was also formerly the Chair of the Islamic Studies Interdepartmental Program at UCLA. He is the founder of the Institute of Advanced Usuli Studies ("The Usuli Institute"), a non-profit educational institute dedicated to ethics, beauty and critical thinking in the Islamic intellectual tradition."

Source: https://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/khaled-m-abou-el-fadl ChickenSoup54 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

What's the line from Amer that suggests "this Hadith's centrality for Muslim Scholars"? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing paraphrasing there, just sharing my perception. I request not to read my sentence in isolation of my next sentence ".. I could have quoted couple of paragraphs of Sahar but reading of some complete pages may be more helpful to understand what Sahar is trying to say and how to paraphrase it and whether present sentence in the article is representative enough or need to be paraphrased differently. .."

Now the sentence where word central comes is ".. Even though this hadith exhibits all the traits of a report that ought to have been discarded immediately for being unreliable, it has become a central one in the Islamic justification of the veiling .." - Page 33 Sahar Amer, 'What is Veiling?' (So I agree word 'Muslim Scholars' is not there as is but "Islamic justification of the veiling" is and who does justifications? So I am not doing paraphrasing and suggested every one to read the source pages on their own. It's available on google books, if any difficulties the approach WP:Library exchange notice board. Bookku (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems counterintuitive on a common sense basis. For one thing, it is the hijab, not awra that is typically referred to as "veiling" in Islamic studies, so I'm not sure why Amer has muddled this terminology. That immediately strikes the knowing reader as a little odd. Another question is who else is Amer citing? If there was more than one source chiming in on this point, it would be better reinforced, but as it stands, this lone claim from Amer is nigh unto WP:ECREE territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually personally I have no issues if that particular Hadith remains or removed from the article. Whatever you do do it after proper consideration.

Here I came across one

• Brown, Jonathan A.C.. Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction. United Kingdom, OUP Oxford, 2011. Page 102-103
  • Jonathan A.C. Brown is Assistant Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Washington

Bookku (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Following volume also - while claiming Hadith not authentic enough - says ".. this is perhaps most commonly-quoted Hadith on the subject: .." This volume seem to analyze and discuss the hadith more than one chapter and in more detail. Book is available on google books but for page number you will need to seek help from WP:Wikipedia library / exchange.

• Islam and the Veil: Theoretical and Regional Contexts. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.

Bookku (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Even though not considered authentic, scholars seems to need to discuss this Hadith, the reason is succinctly becomes clear in Dr. Usama Hasan, 2011 Islam and the Veil, ed. T. Gabriel & R. Hannan, Continuum, 2011 Page 7-8 the paper is laso part of edited volume "Islam and the Veil: Theoretical and Regional Contexts. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011."

Dr. Hasan says ".. Since the hadith of Asma‟ is not authentic, and given the diversity of views of the jurists

on the topic, it can be argued that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not specify exactly which parts of her body every woman should cover or display to every person who sees her, but taught general values and guidelines that would adapt

according to time, place, context and culture. .."

Effectively if this hadith taken out flexibility for the way Muslim women would clothe themselves seem to increase. To moderates this may be quite okay, but to orthodox? Any ways authentic or not, the Hadith seems part of scholarly discussion. And whether to cover all the scholarly discussion is for WP community to decide. Bookku (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a slight adjustment in the Wikipedia article. In the "Debate, deliberation and activism" section, instead of solely addressing that there's a debate among mainly "liberal and progressive Muslims," it might be beneficial to also write that this is a much-debated topic among "moderate Muslims and scholars" as well..

The debate over concepts like the hijab isn't limited to "cultural Muslims" or "progressives" who seek to change the religion or have very limited knowledge of Islam. In fact, it's a nuanced discussion that involves moderate, well-educated scholars who bring valuable perspectives to the table. By including their viewpoints, I believe readers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity surrounding the issue of the Hijab and whether it's actually religiously mandated. ChickenSoup54 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks. My purpose to respond to you was to keep you informed of various parameters that need considerations while updating the article. Just for info that I have edited some related articles regarding historical linguistic of the term, helped updating the article relating the point of view of Islamic feminism.

Among orthodox-conservatives having reliance on textual there are multiple schools, then there is lived Islam (side of lived religion also gets less attention on WP than it deserves regarding all religions incl. Islam), then as you said there are various levels of moderates, progressives, secular, humanists then Islamic Feminist, secular Muslim Feminist, Secular non-Muslima and ex-Muslim Feminist.

I suppose every thing needs to get balanced space. My personal observation is though lot many edits happen in Muslim women dress related articles but lot of time is wasted in media centric polarized edits, while lot of academic sources are their at google scholar and google books used to minimum and that need to be opposite. We are supposed to use academic sources as much as possible to include all kind above discussed views.

May be slow but see you and others who come across this discussion can help include more academic perspectives regarding all notable schools of thought. Wish you happy editing. Bookku (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your dedication to ensuring a balanced and well-researched approach in updating the article.

I apologize for my delayed reply as I had exams going on.

Your point about the diverse range of perspectives, from orthodox-conservatives to Islamic feminists, and the importance of including lived Islam, is well taken. It's crucial that we provide a comprehensive view that respects the complexity and diversity within the Muslim community.

In line with our discussion on Hijab, I found an insightful reference in "The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists" by Khaled Abou El Fadl. On page 274, he states, "Moderates disagree amongst themselves on whether the veil is Islamically mandated or whether it is a religious duty upon women, but all moderates agree that in all cases it should be a woman’s autonomous decision whether to wear the veil or not, and that her choice must be respected. The moderates’ pro-choice position is based on the Qur’anic teaching that there ought to be no compulsion in religion."

This highlights the necessity of incorporating a wide array of academic perspectives, ensuring all notable schools of thought are represented.

I completely agree that academic sources should be prioritized over media-centric edits to provide a more nuanced and informed view. I'll certainly aim to contribute more academic perspectives to our discussions and edits.

Wishing you happy editing as well. ChickenSoup54 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I also found a Britannica article which might not be an academic source, but it could be considered "reliable" since it is allegedly written by experts and scholars, not laymen. It states, "Wearing hijab and other garments—such as the niqab, chador, or burka—is often mistaken as required Islamic convention. Yet the practice of so-called veiling is not one of the five pillars of Islam, and both the Qurʾān (the holy book of Islam) and Hadith (the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) are somewhat ambiguous on proper attire. There is consensus among Muslim scholars that both women and men should dress modestly, but they continue to debate the extent of women’s covering and whether it includes the head, face, or entire body. Some advocate the practice of so-called veiling, while others argue that the Sharīʿah—Islamic law—requires nothing more than conservative clothing. Indeed, whether a woman wears hijab depends on interpretations of Islamic law, geographic location, civil law, and personal choice."[1]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hijab ChickenSoup54 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

'woman's voice'  ?

Vide this dif an IP has deleted sentence

".. Certain scholars have concluded from the above differences that a woman's voice is part of her awrah. .."

Since certain conservative views may have existed and would be notable with WP:RS. But associated refs now deleted by above dif do not seem to be RS. If some one has time to search academic ref then content may be restored.

On side note: I didn't get what IP's summary "2 countering points" meant Bookku (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)