Talk:Islam and gender segregation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ContrerasLopez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sex Segregation link

This article could use a prominent link to Sex segregation at the top; I'm just not sure how. Melchoir 19:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Striver 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit was done using content from the Sex segregation article. Calliopejen1 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I move that Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Gender_apartheid be merged into this article as this is the more appropriate and more specific location for this content. Lothar of the Hill People 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

as with the other article: i agree. i see no reason for the content forking. ITAQALLAH 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would totally agree, if they were they same thing. Unfortunately, they are not. In this country, women are not allowed to move freely outside without a male relative accompanying them. Segregation would mean that there were different roads where they could walk. Gender Apartheid reduces freedom of women and impacts their human rights. Bigglove 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, since that article deals with these very common terms - gender apartheid and should be in the allegation article, like other allegation articles. If you think it's a word to avoid, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Apartheid and merge all articles to "segregation" articles... that's the only proper way to do it IMO, Amoruso 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amoruso. I oppose this proposed merge, as I believe it should not be discussed or decided in isolation. A precedent was set on Wikipedia to refer to "apartheid" in the title of an article about one country that had been accused of "apartheid." That was an unfortunate precedent, but until it is changed, consistency demands that "allegations of apartheid" be treated the same for different countries. I also second Amoruso's reference to Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Apartheid, and I have already commented there that articles other than those about South Africa should not have "apartheid" in their titles. 6SJ7 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The precedent is that Allegations of articles are being treated separately. That's why several of the AFD's have succeeded in deleting individual articles while others are not. They aren't all the same and can't be treated in a cookie-cutter, one sise fits all manner. Lothar of the Hill People 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term "apartheid" belongs anywhere but S. Africa, but as long as it is used in other titles across WP, it should be dealt with consistently. Here the AFD has failed, and now we have an effort to delete the case where "the apartheid is starkest in Saudi Arabia" by other means. Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Apartheid is a good place to start. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD didn't fail, it was closed before it ran its course so that there could be further discussion. This is an attempt at such a discussion and if it fails it's quite likely the AFD will be re-opened. Lothar of the Hill People 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if any article truly merits the word apartheid (outside of SA), this one does. IronDuke 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a valid option to merge articles, once AFDs did fail. Besides, Bigglove's reasoning is correct. --tickle me 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Situation in Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan due to women who strictrly disagree with islamic attitude to women the number of muslims is significantly less than number of Kazakhs and other ethnic groups who traditionally considered as islamic peoples. (70% of islamic peoples vs 47% of muslims) Typically the first visit of mosque by such women is the last visit of it, as they meet sex segregation in mosques, which considered as very offencive and leed to decision to change religion.

Strothra just simply deletes it by fully ignoring the facts that the number of ethnic groups that traditionaly considered as islamic peoples are 70% however number of muslims is only 47% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are not in compliance with Wikipedia's citation and verification policies. Please add reliable sources for such information. --Strothra 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

look at statistsics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many many problem with your statements - First, you do not provide a source for your statistical information. Second, you don't define what you mean by "traditionally considered as Islamic people." What people? What do you mean by "traditionally?" You say that there are "women who strictly disagree with islamic attitude to women." Who are these women? What do you mean by "Islamic attitudes to women". That's all very vague. These are all claims that need to be cited. Further, the syntax and diction used in your statement makes very little sense to an English reader. --Strothra 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are trying to say that most women who attend Mosque in Kazakhstan only do so once and then leave and change their religion because they are offended by Muslim views of women. If so, that is an incredibly subjective point of view and will need a reliable source. --Strothra 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved

The article is moved from "Sex segregation in Islam" to "Sex segregation and Islam".

The reason being, the concept is disputed, and often used by critics of Islam. Thus, it's not NPOV for an article title to side with one bias (particularly that of critics).Bless sins (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain why the more accurate title is POV. Arrow740 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

When did I say "the more accurate title is POV"? Infact, if anything, the more inaccurate title "Sex segregation in Islam" is POV. It's POV because it assumes there is sex segregation, just like the critics of Islam do. "Sex segregation in Islam" would be just as POV as "Lack of sex segregation in Islam" because the latter would assume there is little segregation.Bless sins (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is sex segregation in Islam. Non-mahram, etc. Arrow740 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is under dispute.21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs)

That's NOT under dispute. All Islamic edicts are against mix between men and women. Islam even prevents men from touching the opposite sex in all kinds. Traditionally in all Islamic countries men and women have been separated. Boys and girls have been separated from each other until marriage while after marriage, they are separated to prevent emotional affair with other people outside the family. You may say that way because you may prefer to give a modest face to Islam. --Doostdar (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed section of quote

I've ellipsed out the following section of the Daniel McNeill quote: Amusement parks and skating rinks have segregated hours, so families cannot visit together. This is factually incorrect: segregation in Saudi Arabia is between unmarried men and families, not women and men. A husband, wife and children can visit an amusement park together during family hours. Jpatokal (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverse sex segregation?

What exactly is "reversed sex segregation"?

See also

Purdah

Sultana's Dream, a 1905 Bengali story of reversed sex segregation

Sultana's Dream is about sex segregation towards men, but does that make it "reversed sex segregation"? I think that sex segregation is sex segregation no matter which sex is inflicted.. I vote for removing the word "reversed" in the sentence above! - "Sultana's Dream, a 1905 Bengali story of reversed sex segregation"

'What exactly is "reversed sex segregation"?' Good question.Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Section on Iran: no citations and POV?

I propose a NPOV tag for the summary section on Iran. It suggests a better situation for women post-revolution while the full article on Sex segregation in Iran it is supposed to summarise suggests the opposite. It reads like a defence of the regime rather than an encyclopaedic description. Mixsynth (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sex segregation and Islam

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sex segregation and Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Masdjid1":

• From Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques: Hillenbrand, R. "Masdjid. I. In the central Islamic lands". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• From Mosque: Hillenbrand, R. "Masdjid. I. In the central Islamic lands". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is now repaired. -Salamurai (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Khadijeh & Muhamed

I have a problem with the current introduction. When Khadijeh employed Muhammad, neither of them were Muslims.--478jjjz (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo

"... and praying in your house is better for you that praying in your courtyard, ...."

Is it 'that', or 'than'?

Taj Mahal image for Islamic architecture

Taj Mahal is a specimen for Mughal architecture which combines elements of both Hindu and Islamic architectures. It will be incorrect to display as symbol of Islamic arts as Mughal architecture in its own is different subject all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.202 (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

"This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011)" on Saudi Arabia. Why? there seem to have adequate sourcing. --187.40.241.221 (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that women cannot treat men in Saudi Arabia. The majority if nurses are Filipino ladies, and they routinely treat men. The source given it old, from 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.105.10.96 (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

removed section of online sex segregation

because it included only one source which is a fake source and does not exist at all. Please feel free anyone if you find a source to get it back. Please do not include it back without a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmiegestestor (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Obvious POV pushing from both sides in the lead

The lead of the article first claims that Islam discourages socially gender-mixed situations - obviously a POV push because not all Muslims believe that. Then in the next paragraph it claims that there is no proof for the practice in the source texts - all cited with fatwa websites or "ask a cleric" articles where the cleric/writer obviously holds the view that the practice is baseless, thus also pushing a POV. It is, frankly, schizophrenic this way and absolutely unacceptable per WP:NPOV.
Obviously, those who support gender segregation quote verses from Qur'an and hadith they think supports their causes and those who think it's baseless also quote verses and hadith. Anybody who denies either point is obviously a partisan for one side or the other. The best solution is to keep the argument down in another section, without writing the article in a way that takes sides or declares one side correct, and leaving the lead to simply say something explanatory like "gender segregation has supporters and opposers, all of whom claim their view is more textually correct." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gender segregation and Muslims. 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/20070809010459/http://www.pbs.org:80/wnet/religionandethics/week811/cover.html to http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week811/cover.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 15:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender segregation and Muslims. 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/20060409200739/http://usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womeninsociety.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womeninsociety.html#mosque

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamic theologians in Canada versus Islamic theologian in Arabia

"Islamic theologian in Saudi Arabia Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak has called sex segregation mandatory," has been removed. I'd like to know why the we can't tell both sides of the story.--74.190.107.49 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your wording: For more than a millennium, sex segregation has been the rallying cry of Islamic fanatics and theologians. Huff ref is far from just reporting the facts. i.e. wp:POV. The second addition: Islamic theologian in Saudi Arabia Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak has called sex segregation mandatory. is not referenced. Jim1138 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the Reuters reference.--74.190.107.49 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That would seem to satisfy the latter, though "fatwa" and "put to death" might be included. The first needs to be written in a factual manner with an encyclopedic wp:tone. Otherwise it will be reverted as being POV. Jim1138 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have re-worked the introduction per your input. Feel free to touch it up and remove the tag.--74.190.107.49 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender segregation and Muslims. 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/20111015053054/http://islam.us:80/hadith/muslim/004.smt.html to http://islam.us/hadith/muslim/004.smt.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gender segregation and Muslims. 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/20110709125251/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/kotb2.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/kotb2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629102046/http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/Global_Petition_Flyer.pdf to http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/Global_Petition_Flyer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217100322/http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/DIANA/afghanwomen.htm to http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/afghanwomen.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://islam.us/hadith/muslim/004.smt.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.columbiajournalist.org/rw1_dinges/2005/article.asp?subj=national&course=rw1_dinges&id=624

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"second-class status"

"There is a growing women's movement led by figures such as Asra Nomani who protest against their second-class status" The use of the phrase "second-class" is an interpretation. perhaps "There is a growing women's movement led by figures such as Asra Nomani who protest against what they perceive (claim to be. etc) their second-class status"--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's closer to how the cited PBS article puts it. Eperoton (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Islamic laws are not directly related to women's right

This article is about human rights in Islam not women's right ,but now, in all sections you see links to women's rights. Gender segregation is for men and women altogether as the word gender can be used for both men and women. Furthermore, the term sex separation (or sex segregation) is the physical, legal, and cultural separation of people according to their biological sex and is not necessarily a form of discrimination, depending on the circumstances. Meanwhile, it should first be proved that it's against women not men, if any. --Doostdar (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Refs

Greetings @UnpetitproleX:,

Came across your edit adding file @ Women in Islam seem to have stuck in unfortunate gate keeping. But for this article Islam and gender segregation it seems certainly relevant.

I have not gone through details of the article Islam and gender segregation so do not know how far it has covered gender segregation issues at Graveyards and Dargah. If the article has not covered it then it should.

I suppose references 1, 2, 3 would help you if you are looking forward to update this article.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku: It was an ugly spillover from a different, unrelated discussion. Mosques in India and South Asia tend to not have separate areas for women (possibly as a way of cutting costs—the region is generally poor, Muslims often poorer than their non-Muslim counterparts—apart from general patriarchy), which results in many women not being able to go to mosques. The bigger mosques are exceptions. Dargahs are a different case, there segregation can stem from all sorts of local and non-local beliefs. There’s general Islamic debate regarding women being allowed to visit graves, the dominant view seems to be that they should not be. I’ll see if the image can be added here, and thank you for the refs! UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Just saw, this article has few images, and there is already an image from Srinagar. Maybe that image can be swapped—it is a generic picture of a man in a widely visited mosque, but this will require a sub-section about Dargahs. Also the info about graves can also be added, there seems to be substantial debate. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

new claims

I deleted the text below because of original research:

Scholars differ as to whether the Qur'an requires gender segregation, and, if so, the hadith that require it. Doostdar (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source is original research. --Doostdar (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

References