Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row

Did you know nomination

 * Oppose Since this links back to the article, cannot be approved till article stabilises. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp. Relax. It takes several weeks and months. Venkat TL (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No issues, just placed for now. If it stabilises (as it will eventually), I will be more than willing to strike my comment and allow this through. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your oppose is irrelevent. The WP:DYK reviewer will check the recent page history regardless. Your comment is of no consequence. Venkat TL (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I feel it is pertinent to inform the reviewer of such, in case it missed their notice. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a completely wishy washy page so far with practically no content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait. I think this article is developing and that process should be allowed to stabilize. I look forward to that and hope it will be featured in the DYK section soon.VR talk 06:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
,, removed some names with this edit but we know that those two said something about this row. His next edit is also irritating but since I am not familiar with all the rules yet, I request you to look at it and either revert it or explain why it is okay. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you please link to Alinejad's comments on this row? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The references were not cited in this article but this, this,this, do show that she commented about it.-Y2edit? (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to Alinejad's comments on this row? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Y2edit? Pl. understand, media reports cited by you, 'do not mean' Alinejad commented on Karnataka Hijab row. Those media reports only mean that social media and media columnist remembered Alinejad's old reservations about Hijab.  Thanks
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

BMMA

 * Noorjehan Safia Niaz, co-founder of the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA)
 * I can see the pitfalls of supporting practices such as hijab: Noorjehan Safia Niaz By Namita Kohli The Hindu March 04, 2022 16:26 IST Updated: March 06, 2022 08:05 IST

After all it is same 'reductionism' which is there in society reflects on  Wikipedia too, not only this article but many other articles too. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have added some sentences based on the citation you provided, please check if it conforms to the rules.-Y2edit? (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you explain what you mean by 'reductionism'? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you explain where she "defended" the ban? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , She has said, -Y2edit? (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If she doesn't support the wearing of the hijab, how does it imply that she supports the ban? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * She was responding to a question about this row. Please check the reference cited above. I have made this edit elsewhere (in another article) also.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be so. But there is no mention of ban or uniform there. Regarding these aspects, she says
 * That sounds like a criticism of the ban. You, on the other hand, claim that she supports the ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I wrote, Please correct me if I am wrong.-Y2edit? (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything in this source belongs in this article. "Enforcement of hijab", whatever it means, is not the subject of this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you!-Y2edit? (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you!-Y2edit? (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

hasn't replied regarding "reductionism".

Here are some stray thoughts of mine regarding the issues. The western understanding of religion in civil affairs is that it is essentially a matter of personal faith. As long as somebody claims that something is their faith, and it is evidenced that such faith exists, the concern is accommodated unless it is unbearable burden. (This might still allow a restaurant to say they have a dress code that disallows hijab/burqa, but generally accommodation is preferred.)

In India, on the other hand, religions have become institutionalised. This was started by the British themselves in the 18th/19th centuries by gathering religious scholars/authorities and getting them to codify what their religion was supposed to be. Muslims apparently liked this since they have centuries of sharia laws. For Hindus on the other hand, it was a disaster, because their supposed "law books" (dharmashastras) were never institutionalised. The British were the first do so. After independence, the so-called Hindu laws have been disbanded wholesale, but the Muslim Personal Law and the Christian Personal Law have remained. (There are however no "Sikh Law", "Jain Law" and "Parsee Law", for reasons that nobody knows.)

So, when the six Udupi girls, pretty certainly instigated by PFI, have started claiming that their "fundamental rights" were being violated, they stepped into this quagmire. Their lawyers proved unwilling or unable to argue that hijab was essential to Islam. Obviously, BMMA would see red if anybody argued that hijab was essential to Islam. That is a non-starter.

The Supreme Court is stuck with its own previous rulings whereby only "essential religious practices" can claim to be protected by Article 25. Only if it can reinvent the "personal faith" idea, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, can this problem be resolved to the satisfaction of all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Confirmation biases make people not acknowledge fallacies and irrationalities, and people including Wikipedians are reluctant to take encyclopedic note of nuances and complexities involved.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2022
2001:8F8:1737:36B5:44A1:D47F:751D:2EA7 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC) spelling mistake muslin need to be changed to muslim.
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)