Talk:Niqāb

Irrelevant

The following paragraph isn't relevant enough to warrant this much of a mention in the beginning of the article. It's relevance at all is questionable since it comes from a Non-Muslim group, the man founded it claimed to be a Messenger of God which violates the fundamental Muslim belief that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the last messenger of God. The posting is also too general to be used for an encyclopedic article on the Niqab and should remain in the article on the hijab, which it already is. I'm deleting it but if anyone disagrees and wishes to keep it, it should be kept to a one-liner on a section titled "criticisms of the niqab."

"There is a Muslim group known as Submitters (English for Muslims), who follow the Quran Alone, and argue that the Quran makes no mention or obligation for women to cover their heads. The minimum requirements in the Quran in terms of dress for women, is to cover their chests Quran 24:30-31, and lengthen their garments Quran 33:59. They argue that tyrannical Arab traditions have given a false impression that a woman must be covered from head to toe, and such is not a Quranic or Islamic dress. This belief of establishing Islamic practices based on the Quran Alone, was made popular by Rashad Khalifa, a man who claimed to be God's Messenger of the Covenant, prophesized in the Quran: Quran 3:81 and Quran 33:7." --Moah (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

older entries

Is this garment the same as a yashmak - see also [1]? Pcb21| Pete 19:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

For more than a year now, this article has contained the phrasing

contrary to popular belief, and probably against what some people would hope, the Burqah's usage is limited solely to Afghanistan and certain area of Pakistan

which is certainly not NPOV. I have edited it. 168.12.253.82 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed "Some prostitutes in Islamic countries also use niqāb as a way of hiding their identity when they come or go to their job" because of a lack of citation. I searched for niqab and prostitute online and couldn't find any sources to support this. The Radio Star 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -Alright, I found a source, so I re-entered it with a citation. The Radio Star 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To be criminalised in Holland!

This is a great article! Given the current firestorm of controversy over wearing the niqab, it's really refreshing to see how neutral and informative this is.Ninquerinquar 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

I removed Template:Fiqh-Eti and Template:Islamicdress because they make editing and reading the article more difficult without providing any navigational value which cannot be found in the text itself. --Wasted Sapience 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Niqāb in Islam should be checked by an expert

It's poor article from technical viewpoint. For example the questionable translation for the verse of Qur'an Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (Ahzab 59) has been used while in Arabic it doesn't explicitly means "all over their bodies" . It's one of possible interpretation of this verse. Furthermore it's not clear which madhāhab recommends it and which one forbade it. Therefor I added the {{expert}} in that part.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to see some more material on the translation of the crucial passage - I am by no means an expert and would welcome a comparison of the differing translations if someone feels competent to do it. Helen-Eva 09:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the Quran

I removed some commentary from inside the quotation marks of the Muhammad quote, as the commentary just reflects the writers opinion. Putting it inside a quotation from Muhammad makes it seem like the authors comment comes from Muhammad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.159.165 (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

POV

The statement tht the Hadith support the Niqab is contraversial, and only backed up here with a link (^ Niqab in Light of the Quran and Hadith Ib) which is a poor source. That site quotes the Quran then adds opinion in and makes it look like a quotation, it's very misleding and not a reliable source at all.

I agree. The article ignores the fact that there are many interpretations and traditions in Islam (from Sunni to Shia, from Salafism to Sufism, from Bosnia, Albania and Kyrgyzstan to Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Afghanistan) and shows just the interpretation that is more common in Arabic peninsula and sadly it’s the nowadays stereotype of Islam in many Western eyes.

GA Failed

Please see the "To do" box above. --Aminz 05:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in Politics Section

Under the "Politics" heading, the page reads "The niqāb is outlawed in the Muslim countries of Tunisia and Turkey." However right next to that line is a picture of "Women in Adana (Turkey) wearing the niqab." What's up with that? Were these women arrested after the picture was taken? It seems odd perhaps unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSJPabs (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Taureg

The Taureg picture refers to the man wearing a Niqab. I am not aware that in Arabic, one refers to the Taureg Tagelmust as a Niqab. In fact I am fairly certain one does not. It is not technically a Niqab regardless. (collounsbury (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Bosnia-Hercegovina

The claim that niqab is common in Bosnia-Hercegovina cannot be sustained by any reputable source. Niqab is very rare in Bosnia-Hercegovina and only occasionally visible in urban settings. Bosnian Muslim rural women do not wear niqab. Bosnia was under Habsburg, Yugoslav monarchist, and Yugoslav Communist rule from 1878 to 1992 and is a European society in which the practice of face covering is almost completely absent. Stephen Suleyman Schwartz [[[Special:Contributions/68.50.176.33|68.50.176.33]] (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)]

Only showing one eye

Today's Helsingin Sanomat mentions that in Egypt, women are now being advised to wear niqabs only showing one eye. I think that if the religious leaders had their way, the niqabs wouldn't even show that much, but then we get the practical problem of women not being able to see where they're going. I believe we've now reached the maximum practical extent of covering up women's bodies. Are there any other sources for this? JIP | Talk 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. They could aim for virtual reality googles underneath complete head enclosure.Eregli bob (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

merely a tradition, with no connection to religion or the Koran.

Many currents in Islam. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8290606.stm Egypt cleric 'to ban full veils': "Egypt's highest Muslim authority has said he will issue a religious edict against the growing trend for full women's veils, known as the niqab. Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, called full-face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith. ..." SmithBlue (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The government of the Malaysian state of Kelantan have proposed a ban on the purdah if necessary for security reasons. [2] While it's not clear my guess is this would include the niqab if it were to ever be implemented given the rationale Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Covering one's wife, daughter prevents them from being oogled or lusted after by hiding their physical beauty. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."156.34.179.3 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The claim that niqab is common in United Kingdom cannot be sustained by any reputable source. Niqab is very rare in United Kingdom and only occasionally visible in urban settings. Even in highly concentrated muslim areas it is a rare sight, the Hijab being the dominant form of veil. Splodgeness (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA for main page readers

Can anyone give either the IPA or a short sound sample of the correct pronunciation for Niqāb ? User A1 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs a section about Niqab History at the beginning of the article

There are views that consider veil and niqab are not related to Muslims only as women in western countries and different other religions used to wear veil or niqab too in the past. And there is an example of an Austrian princess wearing niqab in this link. --Notopia (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"woman wearing a niqāb in Monterey, California"

Is that a given? How do we know it wasn't Michael Jackson in the photo? Varlaam (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing the title to the correct English spelling

The word Niqāb is incorrect. The letter a has no accent over it in English. Therefore this article should be titled - "Niqab" not "Niqāb"

Inapt image for "Part of a Series on Islamic Culture"

The Taj Mahal is in India. As far as I know it has little to do with Islam. Perhaps a change is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.24.97 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Image

I removed an image from the article that showed a female with her breasts exposed. This image is controversial and should not be added to this article unless there is firm consensus. My view is that it adds no educational information about the topic because there are many other images available to illustrate the article that are not controversial, so it is an unnecessary distraction. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the purpose of the garment is to cover up, not to tease as the artwork does, so this image is just irrelevant to the article. CarolMooreDC 17:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

« My view is that it adds no educational information about the topic ». This is the exact opposite, sister : it shows the way a niqab is composed. Puritan viewpoints of hysterical feminists always brings to absurdity. 83.204.229.190 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong or misleading pictures

The Picture "Woman in Yemen wearing a niqab" is misleading, as it may be taken in Yemen(?) but shows a nurse wearing a modern, white niqab which is completely untpical for Yemen. The typical Niqab in Yemen is black - or in more traditional regions sometimes colorful. However, this picture was just taken from Flickr...

The Picture "A woman wearing a niqab in the United Arab Emirates" is also taken from Flickr and shows anything but a real Niqab worn in public in the Emirates.

Both pictures should be deleted and replaced by pictures with a traceable background. 79.235.92.205 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic use of face veil

I have added three primary sources indicating use of the face veil is well documented among some women in the Middle East prior to Islam. The later reference to circumstances in which wearing the Niqab is not mandated may be better moved, or a new subsection introduced.Cpsoper (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC) References added to document secondary source evidence.Cpsoper (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Tamar's use of face veil described and referenced.Cpsoper (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC) A contemporary example of similar behaviour also referenced under 'criticism', which seems the most appropriate place for it.Cpsoper (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Further to this (4 years later), this section is confusing. The first few sentences imply (but never clearly state) that their is debate about whether it existed pre-Islam. But the rest of the article states it clearly as fact. This needs to be clarified. Ashmoo (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Where's the debate you allude to documented? It's not clear why a large section of sourced text removed not only from this article, it is not found in other articles on the burqa or other forms of face veils.

General material on face veiling has previously been scattered between this article and Burqa. It has been consolidated there. Eperoton (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Views among Muslim scholars" - divided by major schools of Islamic thought

The section "Views among Muslim scholars" mostly talks about scholars' opinions from the Sunni schools of thought. I have subdivided this into the four 'denominations' indicated in the wikipedia article on Islam, for consistency (Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Other Denominations). Perhaps more expert writers could develop the reporting on views with respect to the niqāb amongst Muslim scholars from Shia, Sufi, and Other Denominations.--137.108.145.39 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A broken link (All of a woman is awrah. Whenever she leaves her home Satan reaches by her...)

{{citation needed}} added - The previous external link, {{Hadith-usc|abudawud|2|311}}, doesn't mention such passage as stated there. Neither I could find an alternative source expressing the same. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious revert

I just encountered a suspicious revert on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niq%C4%81b&diff=602918728&oldid=602619258

The revert is done by user Vixencondo34, and it seems to be the only edit on his whole account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vixencondo34

Even more suspiciously, the revert happened while there was an open WP:EDITWAR dispute going at the Adminstrators noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_Both_warned.29

However, it might be the case that the revert has nothing to do with the dispute mentioned above, so I will go through one by one the reverts made. Let's see the content of the revert:

Original: The Quran admonishes Muslim women to dress modestly and cover their private parts'.
Revert: The Quran admonishes Muslim women to dress modestly and cover their breasts and genitals.
Comment: Breasts and genitals? What is this, a bikini contest? The source provided for this (Martin et al. (2003), Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World, Macmillan Reference, ISBN 978-0028656038) has been in the lede for ages, and the latest revert is radically altering the saying of this. It is questioning the old consensus, and I think it should be absolutely discussed here at the Talk Page before.

Original: The Quran admonishes Muslim women to dress modestly and cover their private parts.
Revert: The Quran admonishes Muslim women to dress modestly and cover their breasts and genitals. The Quran explicitly states that "O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women" (Quran 33: 32) and as such has separate rules specifically for the wives of the Prophet. However, many people often mistake it for rules for all Muslim women. The Quran has no requirement that women cover their faces with a veil, or cover their bodies with the full-body burqua or Niqāb. The Qur'an does not mandate or mention Hijab.
Comment: First, it is highly generalizing the broad diversity of scholar views disccssed at the section Views among Muslim scholars. Second, I don't think Somaliland Press or About.com are that reliable sources, nor able to compete with the scholars referred to at the section Views among Muslim scholars. Third, even if those sources were decided to be remained, I think they would belong to the aforementioned section discussing the different views.

Original: * Hanbali: According to the Hanbali school, there are two differing views on whether a woman's whole body is awrah or not. Mālik, Awzāʿī, and Shafiʿī suggest that the awrah of a woman is her entire body excluding her face and her hands. Hence, covering the face would not be obligatory (fard) in this madhhab. According to scholars like Tirmidhī and Ḥārith b. Hishām, however, all of a woman's body is awra, including her face, hands, and even fingernails. There is a dispensation though that allows a woman to expose her face and hands, e.g. when asking for her hand in marriage, because it is the centre of beauty.
Revert: * Hanbali: According to the Hanbali school, the awrah of a woman is her entire body including her face and her hands. Hence, covering the face is obligatory (fard) in this madhhab.
Comment: The editor (Vixencondo34) removed detailed description dealing with the views held by the Hanbali school. The source is also used to describe the views of other Islamic schools of thought as well. The editor reverted these changes made without any explanations ever so far.

Original: The modern Salafi movement (with the only exception of Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani) state that it is obligatory for a woman to cover her entire body when in public or in presence of non-mahram men.
Revert: * Salafis : Salafi scholars (with the only exception of Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani) state that it is obligatory for a woman to cover her entire body (besides her face and hands) when in public or in presence of non-mahram men.
Comment: The original change was already explained perfectly in the edition done by User:MezzoMezzo (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niq%C4%81b&diff=prev&oldid=600844071). The editor (Vixencondo34) hasn't explained this revert neither in any manner.

Original: Wearing the niqab, however, is not exclusive to the Salafi movement and other Sunni Muslims may regard niqab either as obligatory or as mustahabb (recommended, an additional act of worship). Revert: Wearing the niqab, however, is not exclusive to the Salafi movement and other Muslims whether Sunni Sufi, Shi'a or Ibadi, regard niqab either as obligatory or as mustahabb (recommended, an additional act of worship). Comment: Again, reverting against the consensus

...and few minor reverts following. I guess this is strong basis enough to revert the changes made by Vixencondo34?

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

translation issue

Once again we have words in parentheses inserted into quotations from the Koran. A more literal translation of 33:59 would be – "Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves part of their outer garments," that is, a cloak is what is being talked of, not a veil. The phrase is yudnina min jalabibibhinna, with the latter word indicating the item of clothing. Clearly not a veil, even if many people understand it as such. This is yet another case of inserting a specific interpretation on top of the actual text, and should be deleted. Translation from Abdelwahab Meddeb, Islam and the Challenge of Civilization, p. 134. As Meddeb says, "Nowhere in … these scriptural references does there appear the kind of veil that covers the head and hair, nor the traditional veils or the current one worn by women today." Theonemacduff (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of feminist&liberal criticism

The part of the criticism is mainly about whether or not the Niqab is part of Islam (plus a few words that generally just mentions that "there is a repulsive reaction out there in the west"). I think that this article should behold some feminist&liberal criticisms and answers to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.91.215 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 25 July 2015

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Niqāb. 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/20070302122758/http://www.modernmuslima.com:80/niqabhow.htm to http://www.modernmuslima.com/niqabhow.htm

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) 09:29, 10 January 2016

Munaqabāt

This article, like quite a few Islam-related articles, fetishises and overuses Arabic terminology. There are certainly cases (e.g. Theology) where it makes sense and it’s interesting to me to see the linguistic relationship between niqāb and munaqabāt, but in an English-language article the constant use of munaqabāt is distracting and totally out of balance. Any English speaker dipping into the middle of the article would not understand what was being said. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

2016: Legal bans in Latvia and Bulgaria

In 2016, a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing were adopted by Bulgarian parliament.

• DailyMail: Bulgaria bans the burqa: Women no longer allowed to wear veils after nationalist party pushed for law change amid fears of Islamic terrorism

Also in 2016, a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing were adopted by Latvian parliament.

• Independent: Islamic face veil to be banned in Latvia despite being worn by just three women in entire country

423Norvarwrwtere2423 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016: Legal ban in the Netherlands

In November 2016, Netherlands parliament voted in favor of a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing.

• Niederlande verbieten Burkas und Niqabs (german)

92.76.120.9 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

merge proposal

I propose to merge the multiple descriptions of legislation or cultural norms which may dictate to wear or to ban the wearing of any form of Islamic which are described on this page and multiple other pages to be merged into the article Hijab by country. Please do not discuss here but on the talk page there: Talk:Hijab_by_country. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hadith OR

I would normally have left the Rationale/Hadith subsection with the primary sources tag I just added, but it occurs to me that it contradicts the following passage from a RS:

 Of the thousands of reports included in the six canonical Sunni hadith collections, Clarke identifies only one that addresses the requirement for women’s covering. She points out that this hadith is included only in Abu Dawud’s late ninth-century compilation and is reported by Abu Dawud himself without the requisite chain of reporters. [...] This particular hadith tells of an incident in which Asma (the daughter of Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s closest friend and the first caliph at Muhammad’s death) came to the Prophet wearing see-through clothes. He is said to have turned away, stating: “Asma, if a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it is not fit that anything be seen of her except this and this.” According to Abu Dawud, the Prophet pointed to his face and hands. Amer, Sahar. What Is Veiling? (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) (p. 33). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition. With reference to Lynda Clarke, "Hijab According to the Hadith: Text and Interpretation." In The Muslim Veil in North America: Issues and Debates. Toronto: Women's Press, 2003, pp. 214-286.

Hence I'm removing it right away as one big WP:PRIMARY violation. Eperoton (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing

The following appears to be editorializing that is unsuitable for wikipedia:[3]

The adoption by other Muslims of this non-Islamic cultural clothing custom (which is itself native only to certain Arabian tribes) appears to be an attempt by other Muslims to mimic what they have reasoned, in a logical fallacy, must be authentically Islamic since it is a part of the culture of these Arabians and Islam was born in Arabia.

Even if there are some reliable sources that mention this opinion, it is merely an opinion and must be attributed as such.Bless sins (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Niqāb. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1254573360090&pagename=Zone-English-News%2FNWELayout
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112100117/http://selfscholar.wordpress.com/tag/niqab-madhab/ to http://selfscholar.wordpress.com/tag/niqab-madhab/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908073026/http://ozdawah.com/2011/11/07/the-niqab-fard-or-sunnah-according-to-the-madhaahib/ to http://ozdawah.com/2011/11/07/the-niqab-fard-or-sunnah-according-to-the-madhaahib/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.al-khoei.org/al-huda/download/alh_ja1423.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jamiat.org.za/w_veil.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Feb242y5.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://womenpress.org/articles.php?id=309
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/florida.license.veil/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aclufl.org/issues/religious_liberty/freemanstatement.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=006205d2-dc3b-491a-8839-b59562ba52d1&k=58807

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) 20:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Niqāb. 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/20110608070521/http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1140&p=report&a=2 to http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1140&p=report&a=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005074959/http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1184&p=report&a=1 to http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1184&p=report&a=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617015116/http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1126&p=lastpage&a=1 to http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1126&p=lastpage&a=1

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) 17:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Niqāb. 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/20140323104956/http://www.suhaibwebb.com/ummah/women/hijab-niqab/is-wearing-the-niqab-obligatory-for-women-part-1-of-2-by-yusuf-al-qara%E1%B8%8Dawi-translated-by-u-%CA%BFabdullah/ to http://www.suhaibwebb.com/ummah/women/hijab-niqab/is-wearing-the-niqab-obligatory-for-women-part-1-of-2-by-yusuf-al-qara%E1%B8%8Dawi-translated-by-u-%CA%BFabdullah
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926210529/http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_TheLastStraw.pdf to http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_TheLastStraw.pdf

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) 04:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions in opening section

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, but it seems to me that the opening section is contradictory but I don't have the knowledge to correct it, so hoping this will flag it up to someone who does.

The third line"According to the majority of Muslim scholars and Islamic schools of thought, face veiling is a requirement of Islam; " seems to be directly contradicted by the second paragraph "Within Muslim countries it is very contested and considered fringe." and the third "even in these countries, the niqab is neither a universal cultural custom nor is it culturally compulsory. In other parts of the Muslim world outside of the Arabian Peninsula, where the niqab has slowly spread to a much smaller extent, it is regarded warily by Sunni and non-Sunni Muslims alike "as a symbol of encroaching fundamentalism."" SherpaSam (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Someone had tempered with sourced text, changing its meaning. I've now reverted those changes. Eperoton (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Section Merge

Is there a good reason to have three separate sections for "Criminalization and bans", "In different countries", and "Enforcement, encouragement, and bans"? As far as I can tell the three sections all have the same broad purpose, of discussing how the niqab is treated legally in different countries. The first one is almost all France, and the second and third are pretty much indistinguishable. I propose to merge all three with new section headings (I would choose "In different countries" to parallel the burqa article), as long as no one has any complaints. --Shmarrighan (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Covid

Perhaps mention e.g., https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/05/face-masks-and-niqabs/ conflicts. Jidanni (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Yemeni women traditional costume.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Saudi woman is confusing

She's wearing tip to (almost) toe black clothing, the head cover can't be told from the rest. At least the legend should explain, not just state that she's "wearing a niqab". So, what's the clothing called? Not a burqa, as the eyes are showing plus it's probably not a single-piece bag-with-sleeves, or is it? So, what is her overall clothing called in Saudi Arabia? Arminden (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Discrimination," is not neutral language here, and the contents of that section are rather confusing?

I haven't read everything on this discussion page, only skimmed it, so if this issue has already been brought up, please excuse me.

It seems to me that talking of "discrimination" against the niqab (as in the section heading) is not doing justice to the real debates that take place even within Islam on the question of face veiling, and it would be more appropriate to talk about something like, "Places in which the Niqab is disapproved of."

To use, "discrimination," seems to me to be begging the question in presuming that it is wrong to refuse to allow people to wear a niqab in public or in public service roles, with no respect to the other side of the argument.

Moreover, some of what is said under that section is rather illogical. That a particular man was granted an annulment after being tricked into marrying the wrong women, by means of the use of a face-veil, is not an issue obviously relevant to controversy, let alone discrimination, about the general wearing of the niqab!

The conclusion that people did not want to be near someone because she was dressed like a Muslim and that is disapproved of, rather than because, for example, a covered face inherently causes people to find it difficult to relate to someone, is seriously tenuous. It would at least need evidence that people responded the same way to a woman in hijab but not to one wearing a medical mask that covered the same amount of her face. I do acknowledge that in that case, "asserted," is used, recognising the limitations of the research with regard to coming to that conclusion, so I do not feel this one would be majorly problematic if it was not labelled, "discrimination," through the section heading.

Finally it is not at all clear what the relevance of women taking part in protests wearing a niqab is to any controversies about wearing it at all, though those two examples may just need further explanation of the context.

Perhaps it might be worth considering what the point of the section is, retitling it, and tidying it up a bit?

FloweringOctopus (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)