Talk:Niqāb

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irrelevant 

message: Is this garment the same as a yashmak - see also ? Pcb21| Pete 19:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: older entries

message: 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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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  in that part.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Niqāb in Islam should be checked by an expert

message: 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)
thread_title: Quoting the Quran

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction in Politics Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Taureg 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bosnia-Hercegovina 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not at all.  They could aim for virtual reality googles underneath complete head enclosure.Eregli bob (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only showing one eye 

message: 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)
replies: text: The government of the Malaysian state of Kelantan have proposed a ban on the purdah if necessary for security reasons.  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)
thread_title:  merely a tradition, with no connection to religion or the Koran.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IPA for main page readers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs a section about Niqab History at the beginning of the article 

message: Is that a given? How do we know it wasn't Michael Jackson in the photo? Varlaam (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "woman wearing a niqāb in Monterey, California" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inapt image for "Part of a Series on Islamic Culture" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: « 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong or misleading pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Views among Muslim scholars" - divided by major schools of Islamic thought

message:  added - The previous external link, , 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)
thread_title:  A broken link (''All of a woman is awrah. Whenever she leaves her home Satan reaches by her...'') 

message: 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, ) 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.http://somalilandpress.com/al-azhar-wearing-hijab-islamic-duty-32603 However, many people often mistake it for rules for all Muslim women.http://somalilandpress.com/al-azhar-wearing-hijab-islamic-duty-32603 The Quran has no requirement that women cover their faces with a veil, or cover their bodies with the full-body burqua or Niqāb.http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/me080209.htm The Qur'an does not mandate or mention Hijab.http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_351_400/quran_does_not_mandate_hijab.htmhttp://somalilandpress.com/al-azhar-wearing-hijab-islamic-duty-32603
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.Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Is Wearing the Niqāb Obligatory for Women?, SuhaibWebb.com 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.Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Is Wearing the Niqāb Obligatory for Women?, SuhaibWebb.com
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)
thread_title:  Suspicious revert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  translation issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Munaqabāt 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2016: Legal bans in [[Latvia]] and [[Bulgaria]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  November 2016: Legal ban in the [[Netherlands]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  merge proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hadith OR 

message: The following appears to be editorializing that is unsuitable for wikipedia:
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)
thread_title:  Editorializing 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradictions in opening section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Section Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Covid 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo of Saudi woman is confusing 

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