Jilbab
May 22, 2007 at 12:49 pm | In Gender Issues, Islam, Women | 25 CommentsI’ve recently had to read up on the jilbaab and have found supposed consensus on it being obligatory. The consensus derives from Quranic verses and various hadith. The jilbaab is meant to cover the clothes which are normally worn by women in the confines of their home or in private spheres.
The other condition of the jilbaab according to the definition and description deriven from hadith and verses is that it should drape and be a one piece garment of at least of ankle length, preferably longer (for those who view feet as awrah). The one piece condition of it draping from head to foot changes if a khimaar (headscarf) is worn, then it can be a piece of garment that drapes from the shoulders down.
The categorisation of clothing into outer wear and inner wear becomes blurry when you may have clothes that you only exclusively wear out doors and not indoors (such as jackets, coats or even skirts, jeans or trousers jilbab is similar to a long winter coat. So would a winter coat be deemed suitable and be seen as a jilbaab? If the jilbab is an outer garment then its purpose would be negated if a jacket or coat is worn on top, would it not? Does it have to be a one piece garment or would several pieces of garments not be sufficient? The jilbab commonly known and recognised to most as being a long tunic/kaftan supposedly fulfills the requirements – so would a chador as worn by women in Iran and the Indian Subcontinent not be sufficient?
Whats the purpose of wearing loose baggy clothes that do not show your shape if you are to meant to wear a jilbaab on top? Is a khimaar worn with clothing that conforms to the requirements of hijaab -loose, thick – incomplete without the long outergarment/cloak? Where does that leave your cultural attire? Is the long tunic/kaftan – commonly referred to as jilbaab – not Arab clothing as opposed to Islamic?
Is the jilbaab the only acceptable garment that can be worn when in public?
(3rd time im typing this out since it didnt save the edited version for some odd reason!)
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
-
Verily in the remembrance of God do hearts find rest (13:28)
My Other Half-
Chinwag
Shahrazad on Germany and EU to legalise… Shahrazad on About 'liya on Germany and EU to legalise… Tazeen on Germany and EU to legalise… Sumera on Germany and EU to legalise…
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
as-Salâm ‘alaikum wa rahmatullah,
Those are some pretty good questions.
From what I understand, and Allah is more knowledgeable, is that the hijâb as a whole has certain conditions that must be met, and so long as these conditions are fulfilled, then a woman can wear pretty much anything she wants. I posted an entry on my blog concerning these conditions as outlined by Shaikh al-Albânî in his book, Hijâb al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah. You can check out if you wish. There is also this article translated by al-Ibaanah.com concerning the jilbâb and what other garments can substitute for it.
Comment by Rasheed Gonzales — May 22, 2007 #
If the consensus on Jilbaab being obligatory, how would Muslim women in country such as Indonesia, Thailand or China working in paddy fields suppose to dress themselves. How would they suppose to perform their work with long drape garment of at least of ankle length, preferably longer.
Comment by suki — May 22, 2007 #
Suki: I’m pretty sure you could alter an ‘abaayah/jilbaab to suit your purpose – I know I’ve managed to fix mine up so that I can ride a bike, play sports, etc.
“The jilbab commonly known and recognised to most as being a long tunic/kaftan supposedly fulfills the requirements – so would a chador as worn by women in Iran and the Indian Subcontinent not be sufficient?”
I think the chador WOULD be sufficient, ‘cuz it pretty much fulfills the purpose of the jilbab: to cover/ conceal what needs to be covered and concealed.
Also, I don’t think that there’s any major restrictions on
“Whats the purpose of wearing loose baggy clothes that do not show your shape if you are to meant to wear a jilbaab on top?”
Personally, what I do is wear ‘normal’ clothes (e.g. pants and shirt, not neccessarily loose and baggy ‘cuz it’s what I wear inside the house) and then throw on an ‘abaayah/jilbaab on top when I need to go out.
“Where does that leave your cultural attire?”
D’you mean cultural attire as in what we wear ‘outside’ or ‘inside’? For example, I’d wear a shalwar khameez at home and then wear an ‘abaayah over it when I’m going to go out…
Comment by AnonyMouse — May 22, 2007 #
Mashallah I love the way you write! I swear by Allah there are just some people I am dying to meet and you’re one of them. May allah bless you for touching up on this subject. I too have been wondering the same thing.
I see some sisters covered very well even though they don’t wear the “islamic jilbab” and some that wear the “islamic jilbab” are wearing them to conform to their bodies…so its always been a question to me. What is the “real” dress of us muslim women?
Great post sis!
Comment by Sheryza — May 23, 2007 #
Rasheed: I took a look at the link in your entry on this topic – and the Shaykh mentioned to the questioner that their garment which consisted of a skirt was complemented with another garment on top of it (so that’s 2 layers) and so that is why it was sufficient. Other than that – he states if clothes are not layered in that fashion then an additional outergarment ankle length at least is still required.
Suki: Im not sure how the jilbaab would work for women employed in manual labour. Although I have noticed with some such as cotton pickers in India, they sometimes wear the same kind of attire and hike it up between their legs when pickin out the cotton. When they have finished, they tend to stand back up and roll it back down to its proper length. There are usually no men around and so hike it up much higher than one usually would.
Anonymouse: I dont completely understand how they can so easily categorise what is outer wear and what is worn inside the home. I personally only wear jeans, skirts when I go out, and so I would class them as an outergarment, worn in public. My shalwar kameez is worn indoors and out (depending on my mood and where i’m going) They are loose, thick, modest and conform to the requirementslaid down for jilbaab.
If what they mean is that regardless of what you wear inside or out, you need an ADDITIONAL covering on top then that isn’t clearly stated anywhere and is their interpretation of it.
And why does it need to be a single piece garment? I haven’t read anywhere that states the jilbaab has to be a garment made of ONE single piece of fabric.
And how can you “fix up” an abayah for sports or when riding a bike (the examples you gave) when its supposedly not permitted to hike it up more than a hand span? (if its a mixed gathering – if its segregated then you wouldnt need to wear the abayah at all)
Sheryza: I personally dont view the one piece garment as being fardh and believe clothes that conform to the descriptions of jilbaab are sufficient. However it would seem that is not enough – as the clothes you are wearing are not CONCEALED – which is ANOTHER requirement of jilbaab.
So from my understanding the following are the conditions of jilbaab:
*It should be loose
*Not be made of transparent material
*It should drape and be ankle length
*It must conceal the clothes you are wearing
And this is all took from the hadith where women were told to come out to the Eid prayer – even if it meant borrowing the jilbaab of another if that was what was stopping them.
The verse which states: “Cast their outer garment over their persons” I had always took to mean the first layer of clothing worn to cover the skin; not an additional second layer.
Unless im missing something here
Comment by Sumera — May 23, 2007 #
Sumera, very interesting topic and discussion. You know I would love to say something on it but I’ll keep silent. I have noticed that those who wear the jilbab will always (naturally) vote for it while those who don’t will say it isn’t the only acceptable garment.
Comment by Suroor — May 23, 2007 #
There are conditions of hijab, you can fit those conditions to your culture and style. What the sister wear these days isn’t Islamic. Dressing in tight jeans and skin tight tank tops with an undershirt isn’t hijab.
I believe every woman should examine her own body to see what her needs are.
One of my friends works in the Medical field. She couldn’t wear her hijab and had to wear scrubs. She fitted her work outfit to be Islamic and at the end of the day we couldn’t call it a Jilbab.
Let’s just follow the conditions properly inshALlah.
Comment by organicmuslimah — May 23, 2007 #
aaw you beat me, i was planning to do a post on this very same topic.
i feel the need to look smart at all times, to show that wearing jilbab doesn’t mean you have to look frumpy, unfashionable etc
you have made some interesting points. i’m not completely convinced that jilbab is compulsory either. i have started wearing it for the simple reason that i wore it one day and didn’t want to take it off! but, when i wear it to work i wear a blazor on top, as it makes me feel more professional. does that make sense?
also, it’s a hassle to find clothes that are loose fitting, they are not designed to be loose fitting. personally, i was having difficulty with this. my clothes seemed to be getting tighter and tighter (or maybe i was just getting fatter and fatter!) so wearing jilbab solves that problem, you can make it as loose and flowy as you want to.
it also solves the “fashion” problem. although having said that, even though i spend less money on clothes, i have made it for it by spending it on shoes, handbags, balzors etc
(ouch, poor you i hate it when you ahve to type the whole thing out again!)
Comment by hema — May 23, 2007 #
Suroor: I’d love for your input on this
Please do voice your opinion, I wouldnt want your voice to be stifled because it may be an issue for some people! 
Organic: The conditions of hijaab – for clothing being loose, modest, thick etc are fine but if jilbaab is considered fardh then its not something that can be compromised on no? If indeed an outergarment worn ontop of clothes and should CONCEAL, then a long skirt and baggy top would be deemed insufficient. Thats what i’m trying to figure out.
Hema: I think a jacket ontop of a jilbaab makes it look more “smart” and if you work then you need to look professional. Im not sure of what kind of cuts you can get, but I spotted some jilbaabs in Dubai which were pretty (but not cheap by any margin!)
I dont believe wearing jilbaab makes you less fashionable and so you spend less money on clothes – as people think the same with the khimaar; and believe me visits to the hairdressers dont stop just because the hair can’t be seen :p
And for tight clothes – do what I do; go on a diet that doesnt work or buy more clothes
Comment by Sumera — May 23, 2007 #
i think maybe i m one of the exceptions to suroor’s views, as i choose do wear the jilbab but don’t believe it is compulsory, or even pracitcal in all cases. i mean, i tripped over it three times today, and i wasn’t even climbing any stairs this time! (i am a bit ditzy anyway though!
i would consider not wearing it in some situations, eg an interview- and then wear it to work once i have the job:)
…”then a long skirt and baggy top would be deemed insufficient”
i can’t see hoe this would be deemed insufficient, when as someone stated it can be more modest than some of the jilbab cuts out there.
Comment by hema — May 23, 2007 #
Have you searched for it on SunniPath.com?
Plus for the solution to the post editing problem you’re facing, click here to download Windows Live Writer. And read about Windows Live Writerhere.
And please pardon me for posting an absurd comment in your pretty good comments thread.
Comment by Autómata — May 23, 2007 #
hema: I think just a skirt and a top would be deemed insufficient as its not complying with all of the requirements; the one being concealing clothing – which is what the jilbaab is meant to do supposedly. I personally think the skirt/top is fine but others wouldnt think so.
Automata: Yeah, Sunnipath have 2 views; one being it is oblig but another being that clothing which is loose, modest, thick etc is also fine. They dont elaborate on it.
Thanks for the info. Im not sure why WordPress editing was going wonky on me.
Comment by Sumera — May 23, 2007 #
“And why does it need to be a single piece garment?”
Hmmmmmm, I dunno about the fiqhi stance on it, but I think it’s ‘preferred’ because if it’s a proper jilbaab (i.e. long and loose) then it covers EVERYTHING and doesn’t show the shape of the body… of course, different body types are hard to totally conceal, in which case I guess they just do their best and there’s no blame on them for what they can’t control.
But, for example, my mom and I, and several of my friends, tend to be the skinny type; so instead of wearing a skirt + blouse + khimaar (which just makes us look nicer, in my opinion) we wear the Arab-style ‘abaayas and jilbaabs: long, loose, relatively simple but also with an elegant touch…
“And how can you “fix up” an abayah for sports or when riding a bike (the examples you gave) when its supposedly not permitted to hike it up more than a hand span?”
No need to hike it up – I have one ‘abaaya that I keep specifically for sports, and it’s a ‘flap’ one that has velcro on the shoulders but can open up at the bottom so it makes it a lot easier to run/ move around freely.
Comment by AnonyMouse — May 24, 2007 #
Culture plays an important role in what kind of outer clothing can be defined as Jilbaab. Yes Jilbab is obligatory and there’s a consensus on it (unless you dont believe in hadith and ijmaa as sources of islamic law). But, what constitutes a ‘jilbab’ can differ from place to place.
A loose and long overcoat, an abaya, a chador which covers the whole body, should all do the job, insha Allah.
Comment by nuqtah — May 27, 2007 #
Suki probably asks the most pertinent question.
The same could apply to village women in bangladesh – who mostly – unless they are ‘middle class’ and do not work in the fields – are out working next to the men. of course most of them don’t even wear a blouse under their saris and it doesn’t seem strange. what does seem strange in the bangladeshi context – is seeing someone cloaked in black head to foot – it is a colourful country and no one wears black traditionally =- and well you’d never get any work done. so it goes without saying that it is mainly a middle class concern – what constitutes ‘islamic covering’..i daresay because they can actually afford to. Because they are not starving and wondering where their next meal is coming from. Perhaps that’s why i find this obsession with hijabs and jilbabs such a specialised area of discussion – it simply doesn’t come up as an issue for millions – who just want to know where their next meal comes from/. i suppose if our Muslim governments were more concerned with that instead of who is wearing what – it would be a start.
Comment by sonia — May 27, 2007 #
OK, if you insist, Sumera!
Many years ago when I taught comparative religion I learnt that Jewish women in the 7th century Arabia covered their faces leaving only the left eye uncovered to look. Only affluent and upper class women wore niqaab. No one dared to touch or harass these women. When Pagans and Jews converted to Islam they gave up all old practices to identify themselves as ‘different’ people from the New Religion. It was also very hot in the desert and most women wore thin fabric which was often see-through. At home, they usually took off the upper garment (remember how the Prophet saw Zaynab in her house clothes?) because of the heat.
If you read the verse on modest clothing closely, it reads as:
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
By wearing a cloak, a woman was recognized as a ‘free woman.’ Captive women if to be used as concubines were without a cloak. As soon as a man put a chador on a slave he indicated that he was marrying her and thereby freeing her (remember the Prophet covering Safiya with a chador while all Muslim men waited to know “whether or not she would be covered”?). Thus, by covering herself when going out, a woman indicated that she was a free woman and therefore should not be taken as a captive woman. A captive woman was often kidnapped and taken prisoner by pagans in the absence of rules. Muslims did not do that. They bought and sold female slaves who had to complete iddat before being sold.
Therefore, a ‘jilbab’ or ‘khimar’ were prescribed so that Muslim women were recognized as free women just like the affluent Jewish women whom no one dared to touch. It was prescribed so that pagan men would not attack Muslim women thinking they were slave women. This is one reason I don’t think that Muslim women were told to veil their faces because if they did, it would have been very difficult to differentiate them from the Jewish women who wore face veils.
Why I don’t agree with jilbab especially in the West (and this is personal reason and by no means am I prescribing it for others) is because it would identify me as a Muslim and would actually draw unnecessary attention towards me which is exactly what is not supposed to happen according to the Quran. In some places in the ME, I cannot dream of going out without an abaya just because if I did, I would draw attention and be mistaken for a non-Muslim. I can safely say that no man other than my mahrams know how thin or fat I am; they have never seen my arms beyond wrists or my legs above my ankles. I wear high necks and always tie my hair. It is not what I prefer to do (who wants to wear shirts that are two sizes too big? I’m UK size 12 but all my clothes are size 16!) but I make a conscious effort to present myself as modestly as I can. I really don’t think I need to sweat under a jilbab to be modest when I am doing what I think is just fine.
Comment by Suroor — May 27, 2007 #
Ditto Sonia! I totally agree with your comment. Those who have never worked in a paddy field would never know just how cumbersome an abaya could be (and this includes me).
Some years ago my mother offered an old abaya to a maid in Pakistan and she just looked at my mum as if she was offering her a space suit! Then she said she’d rather have an old shalwar kameez that had been worn to a wedding to wear on her own wedding! This maid was Muslim and covered her head with a tattered dupatta but yet her priorities lay elsewhere which I can understand.
Comment by Suroor — May 28, 2007 #
[...] This post is inspired by Sumera’s post on Jilbab. [...]
Pingback by Let the face veil be for Jewish women « Achelois — June 1, 2007 #
The shaikh mentions that the intent and purpose of the jilbâb (as well as the other garments that can substitute for it, like the Syrian garments he described) is to cover the body completely; as the Qur’anic verses say, so that the woman’s adornments not be shown or seen by those who aren’t supposed to be seeing them. So this is what is obligated.
Theoretically, so long as the body is completely covered, and the conditions for hijâb listed in my blog post are fulfilled, then as organicmuslimah also mentioned, women should be able to wear pretty much what they want, giving an allowance for culture and style.
There are narrations found in the books of Qur’anic exegesis (tafâsîr) attributed to Ibn ‘Abbâs, radiyallahu ‘anhumâ, which state that the jilbâb is a single garment that wraps around the entire body, head to toe, and only leaves one small opening for an eye–which is why you find this mentioned in the translation by Muhammad Muhsin Khan/Shaikh Taqî ad-Dîn al-Hilâlî (NB: Shaikh al-Albânî has graded these narrations as weak).
Comment by Rasheed Gonzales — June 3, 2007 #
So Rasheed, where does that put the verse which states an outergarment and the hadith whereby women were told to borrow the jilbaab of another so they could take part in the Eid celebrations? I’ve heard people argue that the above states an outer garment is necessary not a choice, regardless of how much the clothes adhere to the principles of modesty/hijaab.
I thought the jilbaab was compensatory for trousers/jeans and things along those lines.
Comment by Sumera — June 3, 2007 #
Although I’ve heard similar arguements with respect to issues pertaining to the izâr (waist wrap/sarong) and the khuffain (a certain type of shoe), to be honest, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone trying to argue that the jilbâb (itself) is obligatory and nothing else can substitute. This is because the jilbâb, linguistically, refers to a specific type of cloak-like garment that covers the body from head to foot (as was explained by Shaikh al-Albânî in the link I gave above). This garment is like the “head ‘abâyah” that many women wear in Saudi, which is open in the front and held closed by the arms or hands, kind of like the male’s bisht, except that it is worn over the head on top of the khimâr instead of on the shoulders, and it doesn’t have the gold trim and embroidery. As Imam Ibn Kathîr mentions in his explanation of 33:59, “The jilbâb is the cloak over the khimâr, as was said by Ibn Mas’ūd, ‘Ubaidah, Qatâdah, al-Hasan al-Basrî, Sa’îd bin Jubair, Ibrâhîm an-Nakha’î, ‘Atâ’ al-Khurâsânî, and several others.”
When looking at this issue (and others like it), it’s important to take note of the intent behind the command—especially when it’s mentioned. In the Qur’an, Allah mentions (at least a couple of) the reasons behind why women need to don the khimâr and jilbâb: as to not reveal their adornments (to those prohibited from seeing them) and as to be recognized as free believing women. In his exegesis, Taisîr al-Karîm ar-Rahman, Shaikh ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Nâsir as-Sa’dî mentions, “… that «they draw their jilbâbs close to them» i.e., those [garments] which are over the clothes; of a wrap (milhafah), headscarf (khimâr), cloak (ridâ’), and similar; meaning they cover their faces and their chests with them” (emphasis mine). The shaikh (may Allah have mercy on him), used the word “ath-thiyâb” (plural of thawb), which I have translated as “clothes”. I assume he refers to the clothes a woman wears in front of mahram men and other women, which don’t necessarily need to adhere to the conditions of hijâb mentioned on my blog (i.e., the clothes can be colourful, with patterns, designs, etc.), and Allah knows best.
I think the snag here is what we think of when we hear/see the term “outergarment”. In the West, this term usually refers to things like cloaks, jackets, coats, etc. We don’t usually think of clothing such as skirts, pants, shirts, blouses, etc. as being “outergarments”. But when you break it down to its simplest definition, an outergarment is something you wear over other garments that are worn underneath in order to cover and conceal them. In the case of women, they have two ‘awrahs (private areas): a larger ‘awrah which must be concealed from non-mahram men and when in public (depending on which scholar’s opinion you take, this can be everything of the woman’s body, or everything minus the hands and the face), and a smaller ‘awrah of which certain areas of the woman’s body are allowed to be shown and exposed in front of certain people (as listed in 24:31—and depending which scholar’s opinion you take, this area can range from navel to knee, or from shoulders to knee). The conditions for hijâb (i.e., a woman’s overall dress) generally only apply to the clothes used to cover the larger ‘awrah; the smaller ‘awrah may only have some of these conditions apply, but definitely not all. You can think of “undergarments” as those clothes which you use to cover this smaller ‘awrah, and “outergarments” as those used to cover the larger ‘awrah and wear outside the home or in front of those prohibited from seeing it. Obviously, you’re not going to be wearing shorts or capris and a t-shirt or tanktop in front of non-mahram men. But you can wear a pair of them under an ‘abâyah or jilbâb, or something similar (like a long flowing skirt with an overlapping blouse over it).
So long as the conditions for hijâb are met, there shouldn’t be any problem with the clothes worn, and Allah knows best.
Comment by Rasheed Gonzales — June 4, 2007 #
Ah I see. The argument of jilbaab being obligatory was the description of a one piece “cloak” , which is taken not to be a mere description but a rule/guideline for what is an “acceptable” outergarment. For some reason or another this has been taken by some as being THE only item of clothing allowed when out in public.
I had the impression jeans/trousers would be seen as insufficient, regardless of how baggy they were since you could make out the shape of the legs and so would not be acceptable- but a skirt, flowy like you mentioned, and long top would be.
Thank you for taking the time to explain and clearing that up for me Rasheed. JazakAllahu Khayr
Comment by Sumera — June 4, 2007 #
Wa iyyâki.
Back on one messageboard (since shut down), I took part in a lengthy discussion with other forum members regarding the issue of women wearing pants. A lot of the discussion revolved around whether women wearing pants was considered imitation of men or imitation of kuffâr (this last one being also an issue for men). So I would think the issue with pants (provided that they’re wide and baggy enough) isn’t so much a matter of insufficiency in concealing the body, but one of cultural norms and practices. Certain scholars (such as Shaikh Ibn ‘Uthaimîn (may Allah have mercy on him), if I remember correctly), hold the view that it is impermissible for women to wear pants because they deemed it to be imitiation of men. In this case they would be made impermissible for that reason, rather than them insufficiently covering the body. Others, like the late Shaikh Muqbil bin Hâdî al-Wâdi’î (may Allah have mercy on him) held that there was no problem with them if they were wide/baggy enough to conceal the shape of the woman’s legs.
Issues like this are always tricky to deal with and find clear cut answers for because of the many different factors and variables involved (such as the restrictions and conditions set by Islamic law, cultural norms and allowances, etc.) and how to harmonize any apparent conflicts among them.
All in all though, this is an interesting discussion with a lot of good questions being asked. Jazâkillah khairan for bring it up.
Comment by Rasheed Gonzales — June 5, 2007 #
Here’s some additional information on it if anyone wants a read at it and/or wishes to debate it further.
Comment by Sumera — July 19, 2007 #
[...] condition of the jilbab poses a confusing concept to this blogger. The categorisation of clothing into outer wear and [...]
Pingback by Ijtema » The Jilbab Condition — November 13, 2007 #