Talk:Jilbāb

message: Every original translation, as well as all the Hadiths that form the basis for all schools of law within Islam, both Sunni and Shi'a (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Shi'a's Jafari) which cite the Caliphs and Companions of Muhammad as all stating explicitly that Jilbab covers the outer garments, including the face, leaving the eyes open. I will edit the article and cite the sources for these schools which form the Islamic law/ruling (which cannot be changed by scholars who come after them, and this has been endorsed by the majority of sunni and shi'ite scholars... those who start to change the meanings or interpretations on issues like this, while still good sources for 'Islamic' thought, do not represent Sunnis or Shi'as which together make the overwhelming majority of all Muslims today and thus should be represented).
The Muslim Brotherhood for example, which are cited heavily here, are not Sunni scholars. They're a spin-off school of thought whose foundations are outside of all Sunni schools of law but they loosely adhere and pay lip-service to the four Imams. They cannot be said to represent the beliefs of Sunnis.
As for the sarcastic comments below, this article is targeted towards a secular audience. It's neither for Muslims specifically, nor by Muslims specifically. Whatever standards are used for Encyclopedias of this sort, and Wikipedia especially, should be followed obviously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.98.140 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Real Jilbab

message: I found this page by hitting random edit and I just think that it's funny how this article has a picture of a muslim woman which some muslims think is forbidden in of itself.  I think the correct course of action is for a non-commerical photograph of a muslim man crossdresser wearing the jiljab just so that we can be culturally sensitive :)
--MouringReign 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for ironic template

message: To most jilbāb is that garment linked to in the pictures (maybe not even the third one).  However, there is a group (mostly of liberals) who don't take jilbāb (jalabib- as used in the Qur'an at least) to be what the modern idea of jilbāb is.  That is to say, there are claims that jalabib is referring to a type of outergarment which is modest but is more of a concept, not necessarily what we think of it as today.  Has anyone else read something about this?  I don't think I explained it well so help would be appreciated.
Also, some say verse 59 is for when women are afraid of being molested.  Can someone reference a source to that? I don't remember any credible ones off hand. gren グレン 05:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is jilbāb? 

message: The article was illustrated with pictures from a company that sells jilbabs. I removed those pictures. I hope other editors can supply some public domain or open licence pictures. Zora 01:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely fine. I linked to those image just as examples and made sure I didn't link to pages that sold products.  However, that's probably abusive to bandwidth and unwise.  In other news, I found a picture under a free license on flickr.  Not the best representation but pretty decent. gren グレン ? 20:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need non-commercial picture 

message: Good job, as usual.  Just two things.  I moved the link back into references.  Feel free to get rid of or re-reference anything from my original work.  If you can do that (or it's common knowledge) then feel free to remove the link.  But as of now it's still technically a reference.  Picky? yes, but it's correct.  Secondly, I added your "jalabib" in braces since it wasn't part of the Yusuf Ali quote.  I just thought of this now, but if you want you can remove outer garments and put jalabib in brackets replacing it.  That's perfectly proper, but since the quote has been modified it needs to be known.  I see you decided to keep the hadith reference.
:In other news, I removed the link since specific references to it are no longer in the article.  I also did the bracket thing.  So, there we go. gren グレン ? 03:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's edits 

message: The Quran passage is translated in part as
:over their persons (when abroad)
Is the insert "(when abroad)" in the original or was that added by the translator? AxelBoldt 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't read Arabic (yet) but I think that the parens indicate a translator's "clarification". However, there could be something in the rest of the sentence that by implication makes it clear that these rules only apply in public. Could we have an Arabic-speaker please? Zora 05:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (when abroad)? 

message: This article places undue weight WP:undue weight to Guindi's theory, and ignores classical references to Jilbab throughout the history of Islam, and it's description in ancient Arabic dictionaries. e.g. al-Lisan al-Arab . I will provide in time. Sentences like "it was not known before the 70's egypt" are absurd! all of the following are types of Jilbab in their local variations: Abaya, Kaftan, chador, Djellaba, Jellabiya, dishdasha, burqa. Many of the words Guidni lists are actually not in reference to Jilbabs, but also refer to the various forms of Khimar i.e. Yashmak. The Quran mentions explicitly only two garments for women Jilbab and Khimar, not hijab, or all the others, they are just coined words, or terms for variations of the two forms in the quran. Aaliyah Stevens 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much emphasis placed in Guindi

message: Does anyone know why Indonesians use jilbab instead of hijab? Is it a local variation or does it have something to do with Indonesian history? I am currently there and very few people understand what I mean if I say hijab. Thanks in advance.Crisco 1492 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that Southeast Asians used the word tudung for hijab – or maybe that's just a Malaysian thing... --GCarty 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesia

message: The first sentence of the article states that jilbāb "is the plural of the word jilaabah," whereas the following "Qur'an and Hadith" section begins, "The plural of jilbāb, jalabib, is...." While I realize that there are important distinctions between qur'anic and other varieties of the Arabic language that may come into play here, the reasons for this seeming contradiction should either be briefly explicated here, or otherwise the correct word(s) should be used consistently throughout the article. Sadly, I don't know enough of the language to contribute more than this call-out. Anyone care to clear this up? /Ninly (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in number