Template talk:Islamicdress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 21. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This template is pernicious. It says that particular forms of clothing are "Islamic", when in fact the Islamic texts and the jurisprudence based upon them stress what areas of the body must be covered up, and have no concern at all with what covers them. The form of covering is purely dictated by culture and has varied enormously from place to place and from time to time. Furthermore, the identification of turbans with Islam can lead to murder, as it has led to the murder of several turban-wearing Sikhs in the U.S.

I keep removing this template from article and various editors keep replacing it. The only solution is to delete the template. So, I'm going to slog through the steps to have this deleted. Zora 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your claim on TfD that "the template seems to favor items of clothing used by an ignorant public to pick someone out of a crowd and say, "He/she is Muslim!" If that is indeed any editor's intention, we have a big problem on our hands.Proabivouac 06:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora is once again impressive. Well said! -- ALM 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who concocted the template is a young guy from the US called Radio Star, whose response, when I complained about the template, was:

Um, if it is worn by Muslims then what's wrong with putting an "Islamic dress" template on the article. This is exactly why I don't contribute to Wikipedia very often. Too many bitchy people who throw a fit everytime you improve something. If you have such a problem, then fuck you.

Radio Star is clearly not a Muslim, not educated, and not civil. He created that template out of ignorance. He clearly doesn't know Islamic law, is unfamiliar with Muslims other than South Asians, is confused about turbans, and unconcerned about the real-world effects of his actions. This template isn't just a problem for Muslims, it's a problem for U.S. Sikhs -- who are being attacked by ignorant people who think turban=Muslim. Zora 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, turbans don't belong here. Is that it?Proabivouac 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Salwar kameez don't belong here, because many non-Muslims wear salwar kameez (see this article in Himal magazine: [1]). The keffiyeh is worn by Arabs, who are of many faiths. It is also worn by the British and US military -- see the keffiyeh article. The only items of dress on the template that are worn ONLY by Muslims are the outer wrappers that some women wear, such as chador, burka, etc. I don't think we need a template on sartorial hijab, as all the articles are already interlinked. We could have a template on Dress in South Asia, but I fear that it would lead to yet more Indo-Pak wars.

Can you imagine a template called Christian dress? Linked to every item of clothing ever worn by a Christian? That would be silly, wouldn't it? This template is similarly silly (when it isn't an incitement to murder). Zora 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many editors don't know much about Islam and South Asia, alas

The deletion didn't pass. So I did a hurried reworking of the template so that it isn't as bad and doesn't encourage turban attacks. Feh. Zora 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely that anyone will be assaulted as a result of this template. Your imputation of murderous motives to its creator was almost certainly false, and didn't help your case.

Re turbans, Muhammad himself is said to have worn a turban, and a google search turned up quite a few Islamic sites discussing this. Hence, it's no longer obvious to me that the inclusion of turbans reflected ignorance. Additionally, several regimes have banned so-called non-Islamic dress for men. I believe the rules (at least one interpretation thereof) are again hijab (covering a lesser area, but with the same looseness and thickness requrements), that they be distinct from the clothing of unbelievers, and that it can only be a good thing to emulate what Muhammad himself wore. To the extent that any kind of clothing was intended to satisfy these (among whatever other) requirements, it seems to me that it should qualify as Islamic dress. I know nothing about the particular history of any of these garments, but your blanket removal may have been unjustified.Proabivouac 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)