The Jilbaab and what
Garments can Substitute It
AUTHOR: Imaam Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee رحمه
الله
SOURCE: Masaa'il Nisaa'iyyah Mukhtaarah (pg.
125-131)
PRODUCED BY: www.Al-Ibaanah.com
The following excerpt was taken from the book
"Masaa'il Nisaa'iyyah Mukhtaarah min Fiqh al-'Alaamah Al-Albaanee" [Selected
Women's Issues from the Fiqh of Imaam Al-Albaanee] compiled by Umm Ayoob
Ghaawee. This book contains a collection of Al-Albaanee's opinions on various
issues related to women transcribed from his books, recorded lessons and
lectures.
Shaikh Al-Albaanee was asked the following question in
a recorded talk: “We would like more details on the definition of a jilbaab,
since you have stated that your view on the jilbaab is that it is a garment that
covers the body from the head to the feet. However, we have come across a rather
large difference of opinion in the language books concerning this. Amongst the
linguists are those who say it is a large gown, while others say it is a
khimaar. And others hold the same view you mentioned, Shaikh. So we would like a
further elaboration, may Allaah reward you, as well as which one is the
strongest opinion.”
The Shaikh responded to the questioner: “I’m sorry but
I’m having difficulty understanding the part where you said that some people
hold the jilbaab to be the khimaar. What is the khimaar that you are referring
to when you say that they consider it to be the jilbaab? This is because it is
well-known that the khimaar is a head-covering and not an ample garment that
covers a woman’s entire body from her head to her feet. So who is it that claims
that the jilbaab is a khimaar from what you know, according to what I mentioned?
This is truly a very strange thing. Who said this?!”
The questioner said: “This is mentioned in the book
Lisaan-ul-‘Arab, where it states that such a definition for it is held by some
people.”
The Shaikh said: “It states that the jilbaab is a
khimaar?”
The questioner said: “Yes.”
So the Shaikh replied: “It is not possible to say this
because as you know there are two ayahs in the Qur’aan – one ayah that orders
women to wear the jilbaab while the other orders them to put on the khimaar. It
is not possible to say that both ayahs contain a repetition of the same meaning,
thus the jilbaab would be the khimaar, while the khimaar would be the jilbaab.
Rather, both of these terms – the jillbaab and the khimaar – have their own
respective meanings that are distinct from one another.
You know, for example, that when a woman is at home
and she gets up to pray her obligatory prayers, for the most part, she is
normally at home with her hair uncovered. So she just places her khimaar over
her head. The Prophet (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: 'Allaah does not
accept the prayer of a mature woman unless she has a khimaar.'
What is meant here is not the jilbaab at all, but
rather what is meant is the head-covering. From the evidences that indicate this
is that the Prophet (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) ordered us to wipe over the
turban or the khimaar or the socks.
My objective behind this hadeeth is to show that it
indicates that the khimaar is a garment that both men and women – males and
females – share in wearing.
It cannot be understood from this, for those who
understand the Arabic language, that a man can place a jilbaab over himself!
Rather, it means that he can place a khimaar (head-covering) over
himself.
So it is permissible for a person that places a
khimaar over his head to wipe over it (when performing ablution), regardless of
whether it is a man or a woman. My objective behind this discussion is to
firstly confirm the quote according to the Arabic language, and secondly if it
is finally confirmed that the quote is indeed found in Lisaan-ul-‘Arab and that
it states that the meaning of a jilbaab is held to be a khimaar, then it is
sufficient proof, from what you quoted, that such a statement is weak because of
the fact that the author said: ‘It is held to mean such and such.’ (i.e.
uncertainty)
Furthermore, if we study the texts from the Book and
the Sunnah, of which we already mentioned some of them, we would derive with
certainty that the khimaar is not a jilbaab and nor is the jilbaab a
khimaar.
In brief, a khimaar covers less that a jilbaab while a
jilbaab has a more ample range in terms of the parts that it covers. Also, a
jilbaab is specific for only women. They were the ones who were ordered to wear
it and not men. But as for the khimaar, then that is a garment that both men and
women share in wearing. Even though a man is not obligated to wear it,
regardless, it is a garment that both men and women partake in wearing, just
like a shirt. In the same manner that a man wears a shirt to cover his ‘awrah –
which is different from the ‘awrah of a woman – so does a woman. But her ‘awrah
is ampler than the ‘awrah of a man.
This is why we said in the book ‘The Muslim Woman’s
Hijaab’ that when a Muslim woman leaves from her home, she is obligated to do
two things:
(1) To place a khimaar over her head, and (2) then to
apply a jilbaab over that, thus going out dressed with the khimaar and the
jilbaab. So when a woman goes out of her home, one garment does not suffice
without the other – a woman must combine between both the khimaar and the
jilbaab. You are aware of the Qur’anic verse related to the khimaar in which
Allaah says: ‘And (tell them) to draw their khumur (veils) over their bosoms.’
[Surah An-Noor: 31]
Drawing a garment close to the bosom cannot be
achieved with a jilbaab. This can only be achieved with a khimaar, since it is
possible to wrap it. But as for the jilbaab, you know that it cannot be wrapped
around the chest or on the neck. You can see here how the men wrap their
khimaars and how they affix them to their necks. So due to this, what has been
particularized here is the khimaar and not the jilaab. When a woman goes out
from her house, she is obligated to place a khimaar over her head and to wrap it
over her neck and her chest. This is since a jilbaab does not correspond in her
attempt to achieve this comprehensive covering since it is ample and long
whereas the khimaar is ample and short. So each of these garments has its own
specific effect in fulfilling what a woman is obligated to cover. This is my
response to what you have asked. If there is anything left that I have not
covered in my discussion, then remind me of it.”
The questioner asked: “So then I understand from this
that the jilbaab is not the wide gown that women wear today, here (in this
country) for example, from the neck to the feet?”
The Shaikh responded: “No, not at all. This is not a
jilbaab. However, this leads us to elaborate further on discussing what is
related to the jilbaab. As we stated before, according to the language, a
jilbaab is not a garment like that which is known as the balto. So what needs to
be clarified now is:
The command directed towards women, particularly with
regard to wearing the jilbaab, is not an obligatory act of worship which has a
meaning that we can’t comprehend. Rather, on the contrary, it does have a
meaning we can understand. And the meaning that is derived from it, which we
indicated previously, is to achieve the covering that a woman must abide
by.
So if, for example, a woman wears two garments or she
makes the jilbaab into two pieces – one upper piece and one lower piece – and
both of these pieces fulfill the objective of the jilbaab, which has been
mentioned in the Qur’aan, at this point, even though we don’t refer to these two
pieces as a jilbaab from a linguistic standpoint, we hold that it still fulfills
the desired objective of the command to wear the jilbaab from a religious
perspective.
There used to be found in Syria up to recently, and
there still continues to be found in some practicing women that stick to the
Religion, a garment called Malaa’at-uz-Zamm. Have you heard anything about this
during your lifetime?”
The questioner replied: “We have something called a
Malaa’ah (cloak).”
The Shaikh said: “No, I said
Malaa’at-uz-Zamm.”
The questioner replied: “No, not with this term. We
say Malaa’ah.”
The Shaikh said: “This is an Arabic term. The point is
that this garment which we have with us in Syria consists of two pieces. The
first piece is a skirt known as a tannoorah – are you familiar with this
word?”
The questioner said: Yes.”
The Shaikh said: “A tannoorah is a skirt that is
affixed to the waist with an elastic strap. So naturally it is wide and
ample.
A woman wears this from here, thus covering the entire
lower part of her body. Then over this tannoorah, which is called a kharraatah
(skirt) in Syria, is placed the upper part of the garment, which is placed over
the head and which a woman uses to cover her head, shoulders, sides, hips and
even the belt strap that is tightened around the waist by this tannoorah or this
kharraatah. No part of this skirt’s waist-strap is visible since it goes under
it. Is the image clear?”
The questioner replied: “Yes.”
The Shaikh continued: “Amongst us here, they call this
garment Malaayat-uz-Zamm (or Malaa’at-uz-Zamm), since the skirt is strapped at
the waist with a plastic waistband. So if you have grasped a perception of this
dress with us, then the point that I am trying to make is that even though this
cloak-like garment is not a jilbaab (linguistically), it still fulfills the
obligation of a jilbaab, which consists of covering the body completely. Is this
clear to you?”
The questioner said: “Yes.”
The Shaikh said: “If the matter is clear, then we see
that we are not obligated to adhere to the literal wording of the jilbaab, but
rather to its end-result, objective and goal. Now I will go back to this ‘balto’
which I talked about previously, which the Muslim women wear today and which is
of various types. It may be produced in long sizes for some of the practicing
women reaching up to their feet. However, this is not a jilbaab. In spite of
this, it is still not like the Malaa’at-uz-Zamm since it does not cover the head
and what it consist of, for example. But what does the woman do today? She wraps
a garment known as the esharp around her head – is this term known to
you?”
The questioner answered: “Yes.”
The Shaikh said: “A small khimaar (i.e. the esharp)
that is fastened to the head but which exposes parts of the forehead and temple
and which also exposes parts of the neck since it is small in size, naturally
does not fulfill the objective of a jilbaab according to its proper definition.
The objective of a jilbaab is as we have discussed concerning the
Malaayat-uz-Zamm. Is this clear? So let’s take the example of this woman who is
wearing this balto – what would you call this?”
The questioner[1] said: “We call it a
Hijaab.”
The Shaikh said: “No, this is wrong. The point is that
if a woman wears this type of ‘Hijaab’ then places a khimaar over her head, then
there must be a Hijaab, i.e. jilbaab placed over this khimaar. We have stated
that there are two verses in the Qur’aan. This jilbaab may be divided into parts
as we stated before when we discussed the Malaayat-uz-Zamm.
So therefore, if a woman wears that garment which you
call a Hijaab and then places a valid khimaar over her head and not that which
is known as the ‘esharp’, then places over this khimaar a partial garment that
covers half of her body, such as one that covers her shoulders and hands, at
this point, this becomes valid and acceptable according to the Religion.”
[2]
Footnotes:
[1] The questioner was from Algeria.
[2] Silsilat-ul-Hudaa wan-Noor (tape no.
232)
Published: June 6, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment