Français
ItalianoLatest comment: 2 hours ago by The dog2 in topic The most profoundly gender-segregated country
| Archives |
Mahram
[edit]@LPfi: Word Mahram is used for men because in Arabic there are male and female words. Probably you may find another word for females. However in Persian and English it can be used for both men and women. Doostdar (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- OK, so if you're an adult man, can your grandmother be your mahram, or is the adult grandson the mahram? My understanding was that in strict countries like Saudi Arabia, it was adult women and not men who needed a mahram - more or less a chaperone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, it says "probably not your uncle if you are a woman". So is your uncle your mahram if you are a man, or does the "if you are a woman" apply to all the list? If the latter, the sentence could be tweaked into "If you are a woman, a mahram could be ...". Uncles seem to be mentioned in Surah An-Nisa 4:22-23 (as quoted in Wikipedia), but is this something enforced in some practices only, or are some uncles counted but not others? –LPfi (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- To me what is more familiar is Non-Mahram not Mahram. A Muslim man has millions of Non-Mahrams in his life with whom he cannot shake hands. The similar situation admits for a Muslim woman. At the other hand Mahrams are a few people for any Muslim man or woman. To tell it simply, a Muslim son, may have a mother and several sisters who are his Mahrams. I'm not sure but maybe in Arabic it's called "Mahrama" not "Mahram" for referring to women but as these terms are as well as used in Persian you can call it Mahram. Don't forget that chaperone is someone else more common in old times. --Doostdar (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- This sounds like mahram is always of the opposite gender, as you probably can shake hands with non-mahrams of the same gender (Wikipedia in English uses maharim for female mahrams). It also sounds like the mahram relation is symmetric: if somebody is your maharim, you are a mahram to them, and the other way round (both would be called mahrams in Persian, though). Have I understood correctly? What about underage boys, are they mahrams to their maharims (while their maharim would still need an adult mahram in public)? –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's right that Mahram is always someone of the opposite sex but for women it is not called Maharim but Mahrama. That's quite right that the mahram relation is a symmetric relation. As I said both are called mahrams in Persian and in English it would be better to do so because as I said the number of Mahrams (in Arabic the plural of Mahram is Maharim) is few. One of the Mahrams which is emphasized in religion is wet nurse. Even though it's not very practical in modern Islamic societies, it's emphasized a lot because the Prophet had a wet nurse called Halimah. Maybe for this, there is pressure on underage boys for preventing their relationship with Non-mahrams yet it's even adverse to Islamic laws pertaining to adulthood age. So, independent of your age, you cannot marry your Mahrams while you cannot look (if you're a man) or touch Non-mahrams (whether Muslim or Non-muslim). Khalwa is forbidden for Non-mahram men and women. --Doostdar (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- This sounds like mahram is always of the opposite gender, as you probably can shake hands with non-mahrams of the same gender (Wikipedia in English uses maharim for female mahrams). It also sounds like the mahram relation is symmetric: if somebody is your maharim, you are a mahram to them, and the other way round (both would be called mahrams in Persian, though). Have I understood correctly? What about underage boys, are they mahrams to their maharims (while their maharim would still need an adult mahram in public)? –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- To me what is more familiar is Non-Mahram not Mahram. A Muslim man has millions of Non-Mahrams in his life with whom he cannot shake hands. The similar situation admits for a Muslim woman. At the other hand Mahrams are a few people for any Muslim man or woman. To tell it simply, a Muslim son, may have a mother and several sisters who are his Mahrams. I'm not sure but maybe in Arabic it's called "Mahrama" not "Mahram" for referring to women but as these terms are as well as used in Persian you can call it Mahram. Don't forget that chaperone is someone else more common in old times. --Doostdar (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, it says "probably not your uncle if you are a woman". So is your uncle your mahram if you are a man, or does the "if you are a woman" apply to all the list? If the latter, the sentence could be tweaked into "If you are a woman, a mahram could be ...". Uncles seem to be mentioned in Surah An-Nisa 4:22-23 (as quoted in Wikipedia), but is this something enforced in some practices only, or are some uncles counted but not others? –LPfi (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- In Malaysia, khalwat normally consists only of being together in a secluded place. There is no prohibition on non-mahram men and women looking at each other, such as in places of business where one is a customer and the other is selling something to them. Of course you're not supposed to stare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Depending on the part of the country everything is different. I think among East Asian regions, Java has stricter religious rules. The same thing applies to Christianism as nowadays many priests marry while it was traditionally forbidden. --Doostdar (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Roman Catholics forbid it except for priests of other denominations such as Anglicanism who are already married and convert. One of the key changes in the Protestant Reformation was priests being allowed to marry, starting with Martin Luther. I'm not sure how strict Java is now (it was a lot less strict than Malaysia in the 70s, but that's a long time ago), but I think there's no doubt the strictest part of Indonesia is Aceh, which is under a strict form of Syariah as part of the settlement that ended decades of warfare between the Indonesian Army and Acehnese separatists (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka - the Movement for Acehnese Independence). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- (King? You mean Martin Luther himself, don't you?) –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Damn it! I do and fully intended to type that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- :-) –LPfi (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Damn it! I do and fully intended to type that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- (King? You mean Martin Luther himself, don't you?) –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Roman Catholics forbid it except for priests of other denominations such as Anglicanism who are already married and convert. One of the key changes in the Protestant Reformation was priests being allowed to marry, starting with Martin Luther. I'm not sure how strict Java is now (it was a lot less strict than Malaysia in the 70s, but that's a long time ago), but I think there's no doubt the strictest part of Indonesia is Aceh, which is under a strict form of Syariah as part of the settlement that ended decades of warfare between the Indonesian Army and Acehnese separatists (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka - the Movement for Acehnese Independence). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- In Malaysia, khalwat normally consists only of being together in a secluded place. There is no prohibition on non-mahram men and women looking at each other, such as in places of business where one is a customer and the other is selling something to them. Of course you're not supposed to stare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hijab, yes or no?
[edit]@The dog2: You recently added some text on "burqa in Afghanistan". I don't know why you think that Hijab is related to sex segregation. As far as I know Hijab is another concept, and as a general rule there is no Hijab in places which sex segregation is applied. E.g. in women parks, women often don't wear Hijab because there are no Non-Mahrams. Doostdar (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- In women-only spaces then you're right that the hijab may come off. But Afghanistan is particularly extreme in that women legally can't show their faces to men other than their husbands. The dog2 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- This article is about women-only and men-only spaces. You shouldn't add text that is not related to sex segregation. Afghanistan is not the only place where women hide their faces. There are many Muslim countries where women hide their faces, for example in most parts of Saudi Arabia women hide their faces from men and the situation is more severe than Afghanistan. Doostdar (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're right that dress codes are not necessarily related to segregation at all, but where they're expected or preferred for visitors, it would be useful to let them know. Dress code redirects to Clothes, which doesn't mention the hijab/hejab at all, nor the burka, though it does mention the burkini under "Bathing." That's probably the article where it would be good to have more coverage of expectations and requirements for modesty in clothing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's strange that there isn't a page for "dress code" in this Wiki. Tourists need to know something about dress code in their destination before planning to travel. Doostdar (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, and that could be a good article, but in the meantime, it could be developed within the Clothes article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's strange that there isn't a page for "dress code" in this Wiki. Tourists need to know something about dress code in their destination before planning to travel. Doostdar (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're right that dress codes are not necessarily related to segregation at all, but where they're expected or preferred for visitors, it would be useful to let them know. Dress code redirects to Clothes, which doesn't mention the hijab/hejab at all, nor the burka, though it does mention the burkini under "Bathing." That's probably the article where it would be good to have more coverage of expectations and requirements for modesty in clothing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- This article is about women-only and men-only spaces. You shouldn't add text that is not related to sex segregation. Afghanistan is not the only place where women hide their faces. There are many Muslim countries where women hide their faces, for example in most parts of Saudi Arabia women hide their faces from men and the situation is more severe than Afghanistan. Doostdar (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The most profoundly gender-segregated country
[edit]@Jpatokal: Saudi Arabia is still the most profoundly gender-segregated country in the world. Even though Saudi Arabia has recently seen reforms it doesn't change the situation completely mainly because it's part of Saudi culture to provide sex-segregation. how did you decide to replace Afghanistan with Saudi Arabia? Even though Afghanistan is under the control of Taliban, it has not been successful in providing lots of sex-segregation maybe because the central government is not powerful enough. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has a long story of sex segregation. Some examples of this phenomenon are separate univeristies (for different sexes), different salons in restaurants for each sex, etc. Reforms haven't been that effective. In comparison, Iran has seen fundamental reforms especially after Mahsa Amini protests. Young boys and girls mingle with each other in many prevoiusly sex segregated places like beaches, Tehran metro, university facilities like self-services while Saudi Arabia has yet kept its many sex segregational traditions. Doostdar (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I forgot to say that you even see factories with only female staff in Saudi Arabia, something strange in any other country on earth. Doostdar (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seriously? Women are far worse off under the Taliban today than they ever were in Saudi. No secondary or tertiary schooling, most employment completely prohibited, can't enter gyms or parks, etc. About the best you can say is that they aren't so much segregating as just straight up banning women from doing most things. Jpatokal (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @The dog2: Again you changed Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Any reason? Any document? Any reference? Your edit is so strange and so far from reality in Afghanistan. My question in mind is if you have ever been in Afghanistan. Doostdar (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Unless something is wrong with the news, the Taliban is today back in charge in Afghanistan. The news reports that it is mandatory for women to cover their face in public in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has been liberalizing somewhat under MBS, though you should still not expect it to be like Scandinavia of course. But women are now allowed to drive, and they don't seem to really enforce the hijab on non-Muslim women outside mosques anymore. For that matter, they have opened up Medina for non-Muslims to visit, with the exception of the Prophet's Mosque itself. The dog2 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Women are allowed to work and go to school through a PhD in Saudi Arabia, and many of them are highly educated and professional. The Taliban has forbidden most of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- You can not say if women go to school and university, the society (here Saudi Arabia) lacks sex segregation or it has less sex segregation. If you consider Cameroon, women go to schools and universities less than Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, in Cameroon there is less sex segregation than Saudi Arabia; men and women hug each other in public, women don't cover their faces or sometimes their breasts, etc. On the other hand we have countries including India and Iran which are amongst the countries with the most universities in the world (whith almost identical share for male and female students in each of these countries) but still there is sex segregation in both countries. Doostdar (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, news says nothing about the reality in Afghanistan. You can not judge through incomplete news about countries. If you have visited Afghanistan even once you can talk about its society situation. Doostdar (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Women are allowed to work and go to school through a PhD in Saudi Arabia, and many of them are highly educated and professional. The Taliban has forbidden most of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Unless something is wrong with the news, the Taliban is today back in charge in Afghanistan. The news reports that it is mandatory for women to cover their face in public in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has been liberalizing somewhat under MBS, though you should still not expect it to be like Scandinavia of course. But women are now allowed to drive, and they don't seem to really enforce the hijab on non-Muslim women outside mosques anymore. For that matter, they have opened up Medina for non-Muslims to visit, with the exception of the Prophet's Mosque itself. The dog2 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I do agree with Doostdar that women's rights aren't the right measure for whether there is sex segregation – although if women aren't allowed to go to school, that (at least in Afghanistan) makes schools segregated places. But I don't see the point of this discussion: do we need to have a ranking? I assume we all agree that both countries have extreme segregation, and pointing that out seems more relevant than to decide which one is worse. –LPfi (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I can go along with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. //shb (t | c | m) 08:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. We can just point out that both countries have a high degree of sex segregation. The dog2 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. //shb (t | c | m) 08:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Is this really a travel topic?
[edit]This concern has been raised earlier, but I'm really struggling to see how this article would ever be useful to a traveller. This is very useful info for each individual country, but are travellers ever really going to go on a tour of the most segregated countries or something? Jpatokal (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- A tour would be an itinerary. It's a travel topic because it's useful for travelers to know about these things, which can have a more or less great effect on their trip and experience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I said a few years ago, I don't think this article is a useful way to organize information for travellers. Articles that mainly consist of information listed by destination can be useful when they're aimed at a specific niche of traveller (e.g. Traveling with a criminal history or Kashrut) and especially when they help with choosing a destination based on some interest or theme (e.g. Harry Potter tourism or Holocaust remembrance). But this article is neither - it's mainly about practical information that applies to all travellers in the relevant destinations. I think the information here should be covered in the relevant destination articles instead of this list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also have doubts on this article. I highly doubt that anybody will want to travel to a country specifically to experience sex segregation. The dog2 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, they won't, but I don't think that's the point. However, I think Granger's point is good and well taken. But what it means is that all of the relevant content should be merged as appropriate. Is all of it really topical on country pages? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- More generic advice could probably be covered in the Stay safe and Respect articles as well. The dog2 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's just me, but I quite find it useful to have all the information on one single page. Not specifically this, but pages like this in general. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think the usefulness depends on how general individual pieces of advice are. Much of the Understand section (3½ pages on my screen) would need to be repeated in individual country articles, unless we have this article or the equivalent in Respect and Stay safe. Respect should probably have a link to this article, as should country articles as appropriate.
- I agree that most of the country-specific advice should be in country articles; some of what shouldn't be there is of doubtful use for the traveller. –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, some of the country-specific information should be removed completely, like the fact that South Korea has some single-sex schools. I'm not sure what to do with the "Understand" section, which has a lot of information that seems obvious to me – do we need to mention that most (all?) countries have gender-segregated toilets? I'm not sure whether the things that are obvious to me would be obvious to, say, someone from Saudi Arabia who's planning a trip to the US. The subsections about religions would probably be more useful in country/region articles and the religion topic articles, and the advice for transgender travellers would be more useful in LGBT travel.
- Maybe as a first step we can move the traveller-relevant country-specific information to country articles and remove material that's not traveller-relevant. Then we can evaluate whether it makes sense to keep this article as a general introduction or merge it to Respect, Stay safe, and LGBT travel. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right we may divide an article into different sections and transfer the information to the most similar articles. For example, we can divide the article COVID-19 pandemic and transfer the information to articles like Stay healthy, Staycation, Self-isolation after travel and Travel insurance. Doostdar (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, they won't, but I don't think that's the point. However, I think Granger's point is good and well taken. But what it means is that all of the relevant content should be merged as appropriate. Is all of it really topical on country pages? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- I also have doubts on this article. I highly doubt that anybody will want to travel to a country specifically to experience sex segregation. The dog2 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I said a few years ago, I don't think this article is a useful way to organize information for travellers. Articles that mainly consist of information listed by destination can be useful when they're aimed at a specific niche of traveller (e.g. Traveling with a criminal history or Kashrut) and especially when they help with choosing a destination based on some interest or theme (e.g. Harry Potter tourism or Holocaust remembrance). But this article is neither - it's mainly about practical information that applies to all travellers in the relevant destinations. I think the information here should be covered in the relevant destination articles instead of this list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Why pilgrimage?
[edit]@LPfi: I added Pilgrimage to See also section because many of sex segregation cases are related to pilgrimage sites. Doostdar (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Many of the mentioned ones are related to religious sites in general, to getting around, to beaches and spas, even to shopping. Pilgrimage doesn't mention any issues, so the article doesn't deepen one's understanding of sex segregation. Better mention pilgrimages and religious sites as places where sex segregation may be practised (here and in that other article, linking both ways in context). Details on such restrictions should be told in the more specific articles, such as in listings for the places involved and in articles about specific pilgrimages where sex segregation is practised or celibacy expected. LPfi (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Uncles
[edit]The dog2 changed "A mahram could be […] but not your male cousins and probably not your uncle" to just "[…] but not your male cousins or uncles".
The former wording implied that there are variations on whether uncles are regarded as mahrams, while the latter clearly says they are not. Do we know?
–LPfi (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we know. It is halal to marry your uncle; therefore, uncles are not mahrams. I don't exclude that there could be some relaxation about this in some places, but if we're going by Islamic marriage laws, uncles cannot be mahrams. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. It would be nice if people who make such changes would indicate in the edit summary that the change was intended and not just a slip while copy editing, and that they indeed know the facts on it. –LPfi (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I used "probably not your uncle" is that I could well imagine a girl being entrusted to her uncle. However, she would probably not be of marriageable age. The thing is, though, my experience of living in a Muslim country was in Malaysia, which does punish khalwat but does not impede women's movement or restrict the interaction of men and women as professionals and clients or as businesspeople and customers, etc. The potential crime in Malaysia is for a Muslim man who is not a mahram and a Muslim woman to be alone together, not for them to interact in public.
- All that said, m:Mahram says your uncle or great uncle can be a mahram, so I'm apparently wrong, and moreover, w:Marriage in Islam says that it is haram to marry your uncle, although that passage also says "citation needed." And there seems to be some disagreement about that. https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/24410/can-my-husband-marry-my-niece-my-sisters-daughter, https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/31001/can-someone-marry-a-wife-of-his-maternal-uncle-after-the-separation-of-that-uncl. Most results I got say no, it's haram under any circumstances. So maybe it's safest to say that your uncle would probably be acceptable as a mahram. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- So, what kind of uncle might matter. See list of mahram relations in Islam from lifeinsaudiarabia.net:
- Mahram relations by blood include your father's and mother's siblings and half-siblings. However, mahrams do not include the spouses of your parents' siblings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- It appears that there is a disagreement on this. So I would say if you go to a country like Saudi Arabia, it's best to presume you uncle cannot be your mahram. The dog2 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe he can if he's your mother's or father's brother. However, I wouldn't count on him being able to be one if he is related by marriage, rather than blood. That seems to be the key point, although there is lots of discussion, and there can be disagreement between authorities on various points of Shari'ah. A Muslim woman might be best advised to consult an imam or other authority on Islamic law, or in the case of a country like Saudi Arabia, where they may need a mahram to avoid possible consequences from religious police, maybe a Saudi consulate would give up-to-date information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Uncles are Mahram for girls and aunts are Mahram for boys. As a general rule Mahrams are blood-related. As I already said on this page, sex segregation (including not looking and not shaking hands) applies mostly to non-mahrams and I don't know why you are talking about mahrams. Doostdar (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- As a woman can get help from a mahram in certain situations, such as when arrested in Saudi Arabia, one might want to have one in one's company. It may also be important to know whether some of the men in one's company is a non-mahram, to know to avoid (to be seen) being alone with him. I don't know to what extent the latter is relevant for foreigners, but it seems khulwa can be a problem also for them in some countries.
- –LPfi (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doostdar, keep in mind that your father's or mother's sister's husband is an uncle. Is he a mahram? As LPfi said, it can be important to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- In practice specially as a foreigner it's not necessary to know if your father's or mother's sister's husband is Mahram or not. The question is misleading because in contrast to a finite number of Mahrams you have an infinite number of non-Mahrams to whom you can marry. But keep in mind that generally you marry just to one person and probably for all your life time. This categorization was useful in the past as polygamy was common. The problem today is that infinite number of non-Mahrams for whom there are boundary laws which leads to sex segregation and physical segregation of public space. When public space is segregated then what's the need to know who's a mahram and who's not? Keep in mind that there is no need for a woman to have a male company in a sex segregated place. Emphasizing to the necessity of a male company for a woman has already lead to a more sex segregated places for the sake of women's safety. Not to forget that a similar situation exists in non-muslim countries in response to feministic hyperboles. Doostdar (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence, but in a place like Saudi Arabia, it remains important to know who your mahrams are. Also, polygyny is very much still practiced in some countries, and divorce is quite common in some Muslim countries (not necessarily the same ones), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there, but it's not very relevant to a situation in which someone is arrested by the religious police in Saudi Arabia and needs their mahram to pick them up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- In Iran and Turkey there is no polygamy but in other countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq it's common. As far as I know divorce is not common in any Islamic country. The situation in Saudi Arabia is specific as the country with most sex segregation. Doostdar (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- When I was in Malaysia in the mid 70s, the divorce rate for Malays (Muslims) in Kelantan was 40%. More recent information: https://www.sinardaily.my/article/213068/focus/national/marriages-declining-divorces-on-the-rise---stats-dept. (to be fair, other even more recent articles show a decline in divorce in Malaysia, but also a decline in marriage). Indonesia: https://www.statista.com/statistics/705558/number-of-muslim-divorces-in-indonesia/ Southeast Asia in general: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568484923000308. Key point from that study: "Southeast Asian crude divorce rates, after increasing over the first 2 decades of the present century, have reached levels very close to those for Western countries. For example, in 2017, the EU average was just under 2 per thousand – not very different from the rates for either Muslim or non-Muslim Southeast Asian populations." Keep in mind which Muslim country has the highest population: Indonesia. The 4th most populous Muslim country: https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/jr00e3gltg "One divorce in every 40 minutes in Dhaka". I also saw numerous results that stated that divorce had recently climbed 35% in Pakistan, but it seems hard to find reliable statistics for divorce rates there. But in another Muslim country in South Asia: https://factsanddetails.com/south-asia/Maldives/People_and_Life_Maldives/entry-8042.html
- "The Maldives have highest marriage and divorce rates in the world. The marriage rate in the early 1990s was 34.4 per 1,000 people, compared to 9.7 percent in the United States and 7.9 in Sri Lanka, where divorce is rare. One of the main reasons the marriage rate is so high is that the divorce rate so high. According to a 1977 census, nearly half of the women over the age of thirty had been married four times or more."
- "According to the Guinness Book of World Records and United Nations: the country with the highest divorce rate in the world is the Maldives with 10.97 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants per year, followed by the Belarus with 4.63 and the United States with 4.34."
- Nigeria: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl7rm70gv3o "Celebrating 50 years of marriage in Nigeria’s 'divorce capital'":
- "Hundreds of marriages collapse each month in Nigeria’s most populous state, whose capital, Kano city, is the commercial hub of the north.
- In 2022 research done by the BBC in collaboration with the local government disclosed that 32% of marriages in Kano state only survive between three and six months.
- It also revealed that some people aged between 20 and 25 had already gone through three marriages."
- Maybe divorce is rare for Muslims west of South Asia and north of at least some sub-Saharan African countries, but you have to remember that most Muslims live outside your area of the world. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- In Iran and Turkey there is no polygamy but in other countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq it's common. As far as I know divorce is not common in any Islamic country. The situation in Saudi Arabia is specific as the country with most sex segregation. Doostdar (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence, but in a place like Saudi Arabia, it remains important to know who your mahrams are. Also, polygyny is very much still practiced in some countries, and divorce is quite common in some Muslim countries (not necessarily the same ones), so I'm not sure what you're getting at there, but it's not very relevant to a situation in which someone is arrested by the religious police in Saudi Arabia and needs their mahram to pick them up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- In practice specially as a foreigner it's not necessary to know if your father's or mother's sister's husband is Mahram or not. The question is misleading because in contrast to a finite number of Mahrams you have an infinite number of non-Mahrams to whom you can marry. But keep in mind that generally you marry just to one person and probably for all your life time. This categorization was useful in the past as polygamy was common. The problem today is that infinite number of non-Mahrams for whom there are boundary laws which leads to sex segregation and physical segregation of public space. When public space is segregated then what's the need to know who's a mahram and who's not? Keep in mind that there is no need for a woman to have a male company in a sex segregated place. Emphasizing to the necessity of a male company for a woman has already lead to a more sex segregated places for the sake of women's safety. Not to forget that a similar situation exists in non-muslim countries in response to feministic hyperboles. Doostdar (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doostdar, keep in mind that your father's or mother's sister's husband is an uncle. Is he a mahram? As LPfi said, it can be important to know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Uncles are Mahram for girls and aunts are Mahram for boys. As a general rule Mahrams are blood-related. As I already said on this page, sex segregation (including not looking and not shaking hands) applies mostly to non-mahrams and I don't know why you are talking about mahrams. Doostdar (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe he can if he's your mother's or father's brother. However, I wouldn't count on him being able to be one if he is related by marriage, rather than blood. That seems to be the key point, although there is lots of discussion, and there can be disagreement between authorities on various points of Shari'ah. A Muslim woman might be best advised to consult an imam or other authority on Islamic law, or in the case of a country like Saudi Arabia, where they may need a mahram to avoid possible consequences from religious police, maybe a Saudi consulate would give up-to-date information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- It appears that there is a disagreement on this. So I would say if you go to a country like Saudi Arabia, it's best to presume you uncle cannot be your mahram. The dog2 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. It would be nice if people who make such changes would indicate in the edit summary that the change was intended and not just a slip while copy editing, and that they indeed know the facts on it. –LPfi (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Information on "zenana"
[edit]@The dog2: Why did you remove information on zenana, a type of female-only space in India which has a long history? The zenana of Akbar the Great (1542–1605) at Fatehpur Sikri a resident for more than five thousand women was introduced as a touristic site for audience of Wikivoyage. It's also called Zenana Rauza. I don't have more information on zenana and sex segregation in India. Why did you remove it? Any one else if has more information on sex segregation in India please add to this article. Doostdar (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's because I didn't think it was that relevant to sex segregation in the context of modern-day travellers visiting India. You can also visit harems of the Ottoman emperors in Istanbul and of the Chinese emperors in Beijing, but they're not sex segregated today, and male visitors may enter the former harems too. The dog2 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly! As we have an article named Maritime history we can also have an article named "sex segregation history". Nevetherless till the time the article is not long enough, information on the sex segregation history should be added to "sex segregation" article. Doostdar (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the article would probably be Harems, and as The dog suggests, it could cover most ancient civilizations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Even the monarchies article or the grand houses article (which covers palaces) could have sections about harems, where these could be covered. But this article is primarily about the practical implications of sex segregation as it pertains to modern travellers. An average tourist, male or female, is not going to get the chance to visit the harem of the king of Saudi Arabia. The dog2 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- They sure wouldn't! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Even the monarchies article or the grand houses article (which covers palaces) could have sections about harems, where these could be covered. But this article is primarily about the practical implications of sex segregation as it pertains to modern travellers. An average tourist, male or female, is not going to get the chance to visit the harem of the king of Saudi Arabia. The dog2 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think the article would probably be Harems, and as The dog suggests, it could cover most ancient civilizations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly! As we have an article named Maritime history we can also have an article named "sex segregation history". Nevetherless till the time the article is not long enough, information on the sex segregation history should be added to "sex segregation" article. Doostdar (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- The female-only part of the house isn't completely abandoned yet as we have boudoir (woman's private bedroom) even today! --Doostdar (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- If it is a form of sex segregation that affects modern-day visitors to India, then by all means write it in. But realistically, if I visit someone's house, it would be rude for me to intrude on people's privacy by walking into their bedrooms uninvited no matter where I am in the world, right? The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. Boudoir wasn't a bedroom and it wasn't in India. If you were woman you would be allowed to enter the room but if you were a man you wouldn't be allowed to enter. It's all about sex segregation and the room was more used for embroidery. I guess that this art was specific to women in the past. Boudoirs are mostly in France and other European countries. Nevertheless, sex segregation does exist in modern day India too and if you have visited the country you can add information about sex segregation in India. Doostdar (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- If it is a form of sex segregation that affects modern-day visitors to India, then by all means write it in. But realistically, if I visit someone's house, it would be rude for me to intrude on people's privacy by walking into their bedrooms uninvited no matter where I am in the world, right? The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Have you looked at 19th-century French paintings of women in their boudoirs? They are usually depicted in sexy poses on their beds. I've always understood boudoir as a French word for a bedroom. Are you sure you aren't thinking of another word? Just for the hell of it, I looked boudoir up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boudoir "a woman's dressing room, bedroom, or private sitting room". Nothing about embroidery. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know whether those old paintings seem sexy or not. The women in any other female-only space such as a modern female-only university in Saudi Arabia may seem sexy to you. The dictionary defines boudoir is a woman's dressing room and private sitting room. This definition seems wrong because this scientific study defines boudoir as a space especially invented for women. Another dictionary defines boudoir as room where a lady ... her intimate friends. I found a lot of boudoir embroidery like this. Doostdar (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Have you looked at any of the genre of paintings I'm referring to? University classrooms don't have beds in them and aren't where women including courtesans see their "intimate friends". The continuation of the text of the scholarly study you link states that: "The boudoir, a space especially invented for women, has been described as the quintessential room of the eighteenth century. Characterized in literary and cultural studies as erotic and as metaphor of a woman's body, the boudoir is generally understood as a site for secret pleasures." Of course it's not just that, but a person can pray in their bedroom, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- "Learning needlework was vital for girls’ education, whilst for boys’ education manual skills never became as essential a gendered practice as needlework was for girls. For centuries, learning handiwork was central for elite girls’ education", this scientific article confirms my opinion on embroidery for 19th century elite women. Doostdar (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- I never suggested that women didn't learn or do needlework. You stated that boudoirs were mainly for doing needlework and were not bedrooms. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Explore the world
United states
New York
Japan
Tokyo
Singapore
Singapore
