Jewish and Christian "Hijab" II

PART TWO- CHRISTIAN HIJAB

بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمـَنِ الرَّحِيم

I am writing this post (part two of two parts) to illustrate WHAT was revealed to the Jewish and Christian women in terms of hijab, so that we as Muslims can better understand what things we were commanded to do in addition to differentiate ourselves from the practices of the Jews (which the Qu'ran states incurred Allah subhahu wa ta'ala's wrath) and the Christians (who went astray), صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّين . Muslims and so-called Muslim scholars need to understand, that just because the majority of Christians and Jews have stopped wearing the hijab THEY are compelled to put on by THEIR deen, doesn't mean that Muslims can leave off the clear recomendations for our hijab in the Qu'ran , many of which the Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa-sallam explained in various ahadith were for modesty, and to clearly differentiate ourselves from the practices of the Jews and the Christians, which were altered to suit mankind's whims in their histories. Ours are not to be. There are many documents of survivng dress that document what Jewish and Christian women wore throughout history, and some surviving practioners of their hijabs. This post is about the fard requirements of Jewish and Christian hijab. InshaAllah you will find it interesting.

Is Covering the Hair a Religious Commandment for Christian Women?
There can be only one answer to this: yes, it is! The custom of wearing the veil was maintained in the primitive Churches of God. (1Cor.11:16). We see this in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians. The women of Corinth beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to Jerome’s commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess.2-14, 2Thess.1-4), which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess. 2:15. 3:6). Simply open the Bible to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11. Read verses 3-10.

(Corintians, Chapter 11:3-10): "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels."

The meaning of this passage is plain enough. We can make the following syllogisms:
Syllogism 1
Praying with an uncovered head is a disgrace
Having a shaved head is the same as praying with an uncovered head
Therefore, having a shaved head is a disgrace
Syllogism 2
If it is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head, she should cover her head
It is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head - see syllogism 1
Therefore, a woman should cover her head

In other words, the passage means what it says. Have you ever wondered why Catholic nuns dress like they're wearing hijab (Muslim hijabi women, have you ever been mistaken for a nun? I have, more than once). Have you ever wondered why Mary the mother of Jesus (peace be upon them both) is always depicted in Christian art with her hair covered? Did you know that until the 1960s, it was obligatory for Catholic women to cover their heads in church (then they "modernized" the service)?

There are some interesting points that can be made about the Christian directive.
1) The explicit purpose of the Christian woman's headcovering, as stated by Paul, is that it is a sign of man's authority over woman. The explicit purpose of Islamic and Judaic hijab is modesty. Strange how so many Westerners think that the purpose of hijab is a symbol of male authority. Maybe they know that that's what it is in their own religion (Christianity) so they assume that Islam must be the same...!

2) The Christian woman is to cover her head whenever she is praying, whether it be at the church service or just personal prayer at home. This may mean that if she is not praying at home, she is uncovered around male guests who are not related to her; or if she is praying at home, that she is covered around her own husband and family. If any more proof were needed than Paul's own words that the Christian headcovering is not about modesty, this must certainly be it!

This puts hijab in a whole new perspective, doesn't it! To my non-hijabi Muslim sister who feels that hijab is a sign of oppression for the Muslim female, please do read the above and then read the Q'uran. Believe me, if Allah subhanhu wa ta'ala meant for hijab to be a sign of male authority, the Q'uran would be as unambiguous about it as Paul is in the Bible. Isn't this difference the kind of thing that attracted you to Islam in the first place?

Some Christians will argue that the context of covering is a spiritual one (as Oum Amir tried to in the previous post on Jewish hijab) but that is negated by statements from Paul and ayahs (verses) from Titus. We should "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things" (Titus 2:10). Christians sometimes hear that verse misinterpreted as meaning that they are to adorn themselves with the doctrine of God. Adorn means "to decorate; to deck or ornament; to set off to advantage" (Webster's Dictionary). It is "the doctrine of God our Saviour" that is to be adorned (decorated or decked), not ones self. Christians are to adorn "the doctrine of God our Saviour" with "good works" (Titus 2:7), and holiness (I Peter 1:15 and II Peter 3:11) in all things:

I (Peter 1:15-16) says: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

II(Peter 3:11) says: Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness[?]

Being "holy in all manner of conversation" includes what one says, what ones does, AND how one looks because appearence is the first of all communications! In Christianity each person should serve faithfully in the role that God has assigned. Men should be men, women should be women, Jesus' congregations should be Jesus' kind of congregations (as Muslims are not to resemble the non-muslims). Men should look like men, women should look like women, Christians should look like Christians "as unto the Lord." Ironically, during the crusades, Christian clothing and nun's habits were evolved to look more like a Muslim woman's, as they adopted our way of wearing the khimar, so that it covers the chest, though Christian women were only comanded to cover the hair.

Scripture sacred to the Christians presents several reasons for wearing the veil. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11: 1-16) that Christian women must cover their heads because it is a Sacred Tradition commanded by God Himself and entrusted to Paul: "The things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandments" (1Cor. 14:37).
Christian women also were told to be ready with their bridal veils, waiting for the return of the Messiah and the promised wedding (Apoc.22:17), following the example of Mary/Meryem, who never appeared before the eyes of men but properly veiled.
Some Christians argue that hair is a woman's veil because Paul says in Corinthians: ...Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering... that a woman's hair is to be her veil, and that this verse simply prohibits a woman from cutting her hair and states that she must grow it out long. Note: any Christians who do not believe in wearing the veil, must thus believe that cutting the hair any shorter than the shoulder blades is prohibited or else they completely reject their scripture rather than plainly misinterpret it which I feel is the case, backed up by early Christian art, or Roman art portraying "Christian" dress---the dress of the followers of Isa alahi wa salaam. Paul is not prohibiting hair styles here. To focus on hair styles is to miss the point. Paul is simply asking a few rhetorical questions based on popular culture. In most cultures women have longer hair then men, and when they do, it usually looks better. He's saying that when a woman has long hair it usually looks beautiful, and when a man has long hair (which something associated in scriptures with the Nazarenes), it usually looks a little odd. In some cultures, long hair is considered a sign of femininity. So if a man has long hair, it looks feminine in those cultures, and that is "degrading" to him. What Paul is doing here is he's appealing to nature. He's saying; "Look, even mother nature teaches us the same lesson. She gives women long hair as a covering and it looks good and proper on them." Then he concludes with this interesting verse... ...If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. Some Bible versions have mistranslated this verse to say "we recognize no such practice, nor do the churches of God." This mistranslation is often used to negate the previous first half of the chapter. In other words, those who abuse such mistranslations say that Paul spent half a chapter, explaining a deep theological principle pertaining to a custom he applauds the Corinthians for keeping, only to say in this last verse that they really don't need to keep it. Such interpretations are silliness. The proper translation is rendered here as "we recognize no other practice." Here Paul is telling the Corinthians not to get too contentious over the chapel veil custom, because he's not going to burden them with anything else beyond that. He's not going to tell men and women how to dress. He's not going to tell them what kind of a veil they should wear, or how they should wear it like Pharises did---this Isa alahi wa salaam railed against! He's simply saying that this is the custom as it is practiced in the "churches of God" and they recognize no other practice beyond this. That a woman has to cover her hair, especially for prayer. He says it is a shame for a woman to be shaved bald (because it was a cultural statement that shaved women were shamed and women with long hair beautiful), and the woman that does not veil her hair, should be shaved bald (he is not commanding this but using another example from popular culture where women were shaved bald to be publically humiliated for indecent and immoral behaviour), i.e. he is saying it should be seen by the Christian women, that not veiling the hair is as much a shame as being bald so they should continue the practice of covering/veiling their hair.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT HAIR ITSELF IS NOT THE COVERING?

As Muslims well know with translations of the Qu'ran, translations are a tricky lot, and with English versions of the Bible, we are dealing with a translation or a translation of a translation of what might have been something similiar to what came after Isa alahi wa salaam. Corinthians 11:6,7 used the word "veil". This is the only place in the New Testament that this Greek word is used. Therefore it is important that we don’t lean too heavily on one person’s definition for the word. There are four different Greek words used here in 1 Corinthians 11 in referring to covering the head. In addition there are a number of other Greek words used throughout the New Testament that mean to cover or to veil. The four Greek words used in this passage are:

1. Covered (verse 4) – #2596 κατά kata
2. Covered ( verses 6,7) – #2619 κατακαλύπτω katakaluptō
3. Covering (verse 15) – #4018 περιβόλαιον peribolaion
4. Uncovered (verses 5,13)– #177 ακατακάλυπτος akatakaluptos

It is important to note that in commanding a woman to cover her head, the verse did not use one of two other Greek words that are used in the New Testament that clearly mean to cover the face.

Cover - #4028 περικαλύπτω perikaluptō to cover all around, that is, entirely (the face, a surface): - blindfold, cover, overlay. Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. This Greek word is used in Mark 14:65 “And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.”

Veil - #2571 κάλυμα kaluma a cover, that is, veil: - vail. Strong's Greek Dictionary. This word is used in 2 Corinthians 3:13 “And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:”

If God would have intended Christian women to cover their face, He would have made it clear by using one of these other words. It WAS a Jewish practice for married Jewish women of a certain social status to fully veil themselves, but not a Biblicial or Judaic commandment for women of either peoples. Another indicator (from this history and archeology student's veiw) that God is not (nor was Paul) requiring women to cover their face is that pictures of the early church show women with veils that do not cover the face.

For the very misguided Christian opinion that "Long hair is the covering": This comes from two things: a misinterpretation of verses 13-15, and an erroneous footnote in the New International Version. Verse fifteen does not say that long hair is given for a covering; it says that her hair (long or not) is given to her for a covering and because of that, long hair is a glory to her. Read that again. The bigger a woman's covering, the more glorious it is for her!

Verses 13-15 support verses 5-6, which say that a woman whose head is uncovered is as good as shaven, and that her hair should be "shorn" (verse 6) if she will not wear a covering. And since her hair should be long and not cropped very short, she should also be covered. God's design is for a woman to have two coverings: long hair, and a covering over her natural covering of hair. If she refuses to wear the outer covering, she should have both taken away ("If a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn").

A careful reading of the passage shows that hair is not the issue. Suppose we change the passage to talk about hair instead of a covering:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having hair on his head, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair on her head dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven [had no hair]. 6 For if the woman have not hair, let her hair be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have hair on his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. How ridiculous! How do you shear the hair off a woman who has none? How could a woman have hair when praying or prophesying, and then get rid of it as soon as she was done? And by the way, that would mean that men should all be bald!

The Greek has two different words for covering. The word "covered" in verse 6 is katakalupto. Katakalupto is defined as 1) to cover up 2) to veil or cover one's and is a verb. The word for "covering" in verse 15 is peribolaion. Peribolaion is defined as:1) a covering thrown around, a wrapper 1a) a mantle 1b) a veil and is a noun. We see from these definitions that the hair is to be a "wrapper" on the head, to cover the head and keep it from being bald. Then there is to be a covering which "covers up" the head. The Bible is talking about two separate coverings. Also, note that it says that the hair is A covering (as it is a noun), not the covering (which is the verb). If God was talking about long hair in verses 4-7, why didn't He say, "Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head...Every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair..."? Also, why would the length of hair be an issue only when praying or prophesying? How could a woman only have long hair when praying or prophesying?
The NIV's erroneous footnote would lead one to believe that the passage can be translated to mean long hair. The note reads:Or 4Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering [of hair] on her head dishonors her head – she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7A man ought not to have long hair...This sounds logical enough. However, let's look at it a bit. First of all, the "with long hair" in verse 4 could possibly be translated that way. The Greek word means "hanging down". But verse 7 cannot say "long hair". The Greek word is katakalupto, "to cover up." It is a different Greek word than in verse 4. Second, notice that even the NIV translators were honest enough to admit that they added the words "of hair" in verse 5. Without that addition, it says "...prays or prophesies with no covering on her head...". And by the way, if she has no covering of hair, she does not have short hair, she has NO HAIR! "Let her be for now with short hair" (verse 6) is not very accurate. Third, the footnote is not a literal translation. (Nor, by the way, is the NIV.) For example:
You cannot literally translate katakalupto to mean, "grow it (the hair) again" (verse 6). The correct reading is "let her be covered." "Let her be for now with short hair" (verse 6) is not correct. The word that, in the KJV, is translated "be shorn" is "A primary verb; to shear" (Strong's Greek Dictionary). It is a command to shear a woman who does not wear a headcovering, not a "It's that way now, so let it go" statement. "She is just like one of the ‘shorn women'" is not literal either. According to the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, the most literal reading is "for one it is and the same with having been shaven." When you depart from the literal meaning of the Bible, you can make it say anything you want if you just twist it enough.

We see from the above that long hair is not the covering. The Bible is talking about a physical cloth covering that goes OVER long hair. And the NIV footnote (actually, the whole NIV) is a twisted translation that changes the very words of the passage to make them say something else, and the bible has been altered anough by politics not to be altered AGAIN by bad translation.

How did the majority of Christian women come to stop wearing the veil?

During the second Vatican Council, a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcover in the churches. His response was that the Bishops were considering other issues, and that women’s veils were not on the agenda.
The next day, the international press announced throughout the world that women did not have to wear the veil anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women must still had to wear the veil. But the Press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil as out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups.
Before the revision in 1983, Canon law had stated that women must cover their heads "...especially when they approach the holy table" (can.1262.2). But in order to reduce such a growing collection of books, the new version of Canon law was subjected to concise changes. In the process, mention of head coverings was omitted.

In 1970, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Roman Missal, ignoring mention of women’s veils. But at the time the missal was published, it didn’t seem necessary to keep mandatory such an obvious and universal practice, even if it no longer had a "normative" value (Inter insigniores, # 4).
And mention in Canon law or the Roman Missal is not necessary to the continuation of the tradition, for it is rooted in Scripture and has been practiced ever since the early Church. Indeed, Pope John Paul II affirmed that the real sources of Canon law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 169). Though the custom has generally lapsed in western cultures, particularly English-speaking nations, it is not erased entirely from the conscience of western Christians. For example; what's the first thing a Catholic mom does when her daughter is preparing for first communion and confirmation? She goes out and buys a veil. Likewise, what's one of the most important accessories to a bridal gown? Why it's the veil of course! Finally, when a baseball game or community event is opened in prayer, regardless of the religious denominations of those in attendance, what's the first thing everybody does? The men all remove their hats, and the women do not. Funny how that works, isn't it. This doesn't just happen by accident. It all goes back to the ancient Christian custom of veiling. Do Any Christian Women Today Cover Their Heads?
It is true that most Christian women do not, and many don't take other teachings of the Bible (against pre-marital sex, adultery, prayer, fasting, diet etc) literally either. However, there do seem to be a growing number of Christian women out there who are committed to following the Bible as it is written, and a few survving perservors of the fundamentals. My grandmother for one, always draped lace shawl over her hair before prayer, and always wore a headdress like above for special Church services and holidays with her hair covered, and on a day to day basis she always wore hats or silk scarves that covered her hair (though not always her neck and never her chest). Below are some webpages that one other sister found that call for Christian women to cover their heads in accordance with the commandment of the Bible. To those so-called Christian women who STILL think that the veil is an obsolete custom, remember that: "Jesus is the same, yesterday and today, yes, and forever" (Heb.13:8).
According to the Scriptures: Headcovering
Biblical Headcovering: The Scarf of Hidden Power
Christian Women's Headcovering Directory
Headcoverings and the Christian Woman
Is a Woman's Hair Her Only Covering?
Let Her Be Veiled
Modesty and Christian Living in the 90s
My Testimony Regarding the Headcovering
Nigerian Catholics told to be modest
No Such Custom?
On the Covering of Heads
She Maketh Herself Headcoverings
Should Christian Women Wear a Headcovering?
The Biblical Practice of Headcovering
The Christian Modesty
The Christian Veiling
The Headcoverings of Sisters
The Rites of Submission
The Significance of the Christian Woman's Veiling
The Veil
Women's Headcovering and the Glory of God

Jewish and Christian "Hijab" I

PART ONE- JEWISH HIJAB

بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمـَنِ الرَّحِيم

I am writing this post (one of two parts) to illustrate WHAT was revealed to the Jewish and Christian women in terms of hijab, so that we as Muslims can better understand what things we were commanded to do in addition to differentiate ourselves from the practices of the Jews (which the Qu'ran states incurred Allah subhahu wa ta'ala's wrath) and the Christians (who went astray), صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّين . Muslims and so-called Muslim scholars need to understand, that just because the majority of Christians and Jews have stopped wearing the hijab THEY are compelled to put on by THEIR deen, doesn't mean that Muslims can leave off the clear recomendations for our hijab in the Qu'ran , many of which the Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa-sallam explained in various ahadith were for modesty, and to clearly differentiate ourselves from the practices of the Jews and the Christians, which were altered to suit mankind's whims in their histories. Ours are not to be. There are many documents of survivng dress that document what Jewish and Christian women wore throughout history, and some surviving practioners of their hijabs. This post is about the fard requirements of Jewish and Christian hijab. InshaAllah you will find it interesting.

JEWISH "Hijab" [Does the Torah command Jewish women to cover their heads and how does it mandate they do so?]

The Torah states that, like in Islam,when the people came to pray to the Lord they covered their shoulders and head. This is the opinion of most rabbis. Where does it say that it should not be done any longer?

‘‘Make for yourselves tassels [g'dilim] on the four corners of the cloak [k'sut] that covers you'' (Deuteronomy 22:11 MBV). The command noted from Deuteronomy 22:11, is that it is to be a k'sut, or covering, and it is emphasized twice to be a ‘‘cloak [k'sut] that covers [k'sut] you.''

The practice of hair covering amongst Jewish women has its source in the Mishnah. M. Ketubot 7:6 lists going out with unbound hair as one of the ways in which a woman forfeits her divorce settlement. The Talmud (B. Ketubot 72a-b) understood the source of this custom to be even more ancient. In the Bible (Numbers 5:18), a woman suspected of infidelity has her hair exposed as part of her punishment. This biblical passage seems to imply that as a matter of course a Jewish woman kept her hair covered.

The gemara in Ketubot 72a presents two categories of women who can be divorced without receiving the sum of money stipulated in their ketuba (marriage contract). In other words, these are cases where the women are deemed to have violated the terms under which they were married, and thus the contract is considered to be broken. The two categories are referred to as "Dat Moshe" and "Dat Yehudit." The former category includes cases when the woman causes her husband to violate Torah law (the religion of Moshe), while the second category seems to be more focused on issues of personal modesty. The latter category is called "Dat Yehudit" since it includes things that are not explicitly prohibited by the Torah, yet have been accepted by the women of Israel as a binding custom. The first item listed among those things considered to be "Dat Yehudit" is when a woman goes out with her hair uncovered. However, as the gemara notes, this is not simply a law that was accepted over time by Jewish women. Rather, we know from the case of the sotah (a woman suspected by her husband of committing adultery) that Jewish women have to cover their hair, since part of the process of humiliating the sotah in attempts to make her confess her sin is that the kohein uncovers her hair. Obviously, if this was considered to be a potentially effective means of shaming her into confession, it must be that it was the norm for her hair to be covered (see also Bamidbar Rabba 9:16)!

While there is a Halachic disagreement amongst Jewish scholars regarding the law that married women should cover their hair even inside their houses, all seem to agree that it is preferable and highly praiseworthy for a woman to cover her hair even in the privacy of her own home. There is no such thing for Muslim women. The Qu'ran makes clear our hijabs are worn in front of non-maharam men, and for salat. So we have no such confusion.

In the Talmud there is a famous story about a certain woman by the name of Kimchit who was careful that “the walls of her house should not see the hairs of her head.” She was rewarded with seven sons who served as High Priests. We see from this story that a woman’s covering her hair in private is highly praiseworthy. But is it a Torah mandate? Or is it simply a chumrah, a stringency? Must a woman cover her hair at home? King David says, “kol kevudah bat melech p'nimah.” Which Hebrew for "All the glory of the King’s daughter is internal."

One of the expressions of this inner glory is that, in Judaism in general, married women must cover their hair. But is there a halachic difference between going out in public and being at home? In the privacy of their own homes, seemingly, they should be able to “let their hair down.” Muslim women CAN if they are not around non-maharam men. By covering her hair (even with a wig, which may be mistaken for real hair---Muslim women are forbidden to wear wigs maybe because it is an imitation of this Jewish custom) a woman in Judaism is expressing her exclusive devotion, love for, and unique connection to her husband.

In order to fully answer this question, it is important to address two issues at play here: a) why does a Jewish woman need to cover her hair at all? b) Does the Torah expect (and allow) Jewish women to act differently in the privacy of their own homes than when they are outside in public?

Once a woman is married, she enters into a completely unique relationship with her husband. This transformation is alluded to by the Hebrew name for the wedding ceremony, “Kiddushin,” which means sanctification or holiness.

Through this act, the bride and groom are totally and utterly dedicated to each other in a holy coupling. This dedication manifests itself in both an internal and an external form, in many ways, and for both partners.

One of these ways is by a woman covering her hair, which is viewed by Judaism as a sensual and private part of a married woman’s appearance. By covering her hair (even with a wig, which may be mistaken for real hair) a woman is expressing her exclusive devotion, love for, and unique connection to her husband.

Even if others do not realize that she is covering her hair, she has the constant awareness and consciousness that she is one half of a unique and profound relationship, sanctified by God Himself.

Yet, the Torah, as usual, is not content to let the practioner of Judaism just “act natural.” Rather, it exhorts them to keep to high standards, and to maintain a high level of moral and ethical conduct, even when no other human beings are around. Even when a Jewish woman is getting dressed in a dark room, she are enjoined to do so in a modest manner. Similarily the Prophet Mohammed salla Allahu alaihi wa-sallam suggested we cover our naked bodies with sheets even while we enjoyed the company of our husbands in the marriage bed, so that Jinn could not watch.

Why is this belief prevalent in Judaism? Because of the concept that God is omnipresent; and human beings are always under His scrutiny. (And in case a person does not have the constant awareness of God’s presence, the Jewish Shulchan Aruch prescribes meditation, in order to arouse feelings of love and awe)

However, the hair of a married woman does not have the same status as other private parts of the body that are usually covered in Judaism. As explained earlier, hair covering is primarily a symbol of marriage, a demonstration of her devotion to her spouse.

So, all that said: May a women uncover her hair in private? Halachah, Jewish law, addresses public, semipublic, and private settings:

Now, normally, the laws of modesty are not loosened in the privacy of home. The Code of Jewish Law, acknowledging human nature, states that it is natural for people to act differently when they are in the privacy of their own home then when they are around a group of people.

Public: The Torah states that a woman must completely cover her hair in a public place. Some opinions state that under a tefach (a handbreadth, about three inches total) of hair may show.

Semipublic: In a semipublic place, one opinion states that even if men are not usually found there, a married woman must cover her hair.

Private: The Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times “the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory....”

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees with this ruling and writes that “[covering hair when in private] is praiseworthy, but not required.” Sources for these conclusions in Yuma 47a, Psalms 45:14, Beginning of Orach Chaim. With regards to other issues – such as the prohibition of a husband seeing private parts of his wife’s body when she is niddah – there is disagreement between halachic authorities as to the “status” of a married woman’s hair. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (highly respected modern-day Israeli halachic authority) says that a married woman’s hair is in the same category as other private parts of the body, while Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (author of the Igrot Moshe Responsa) writes that hair is not in the same category as other parts of the body that are normally covered. Sources: Halichos Bas Yisrael, by Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Fuchs. Targum Press, 1987. Beautiful Within, Modesty In Conduct and Dress As Taught By The Lubavitcher Rebbe. Sichos in English, 1995.

The Jews themselves are often guilty of making a law (such as a woman's hair having to be covered even in the privacy of her home or wearings wigs to do so) Biur Halachah writes that although originally it was permitted for married women to uncover their hair in the privacy of their homes, in more recent times “the prevailing custom in all places is for women to cover their hair, even in the privacy of their own homes.... Since our ancestors, in all localities, have adopted this practice, it has taken on the full force of Jewish law and is obligatory....” which did not originate with Allah subhabhu wa ta'ala, which is, to make something haraam that is halal. The Qu'ran, and even the Torah has remnants, have warnings for this.

Isaiah 30:1 says, "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of My spirit, that they may add sin to sin."

In conclusion, from studies of Jewish historical costume and the Torah, and the opinions of Jewish scholars, a woman's hair must be covered and she must wear modest clothing that covers all of her skin. Nothing in Judaism specified that clothing could not be very decorated, or that the hair HAD to be covered in a certain manner, or that the clothing had to be loose and not see-through, or that an overgarment had to be worn, or that complete veiling (facial) was forbidden. Facial veiling was not a commandment in the Torah, nor was jilbab, nor was covering the neck and the breasts. That is why Jewish women are permitted to wear knee length skirts with tights and this counts as clothing that covers. Facial veiling was neither mustahaab, haraam, or fard for Jewish women but it was a cultural practice that was a symbol of wealth and social status, and the opinion of Jewish scholars is that it is halaal for Jewish women, but not part of their religion.

NOT IMITATING THE DISBELIEVERS-and what that means in terms of hijab

The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam spoke the truth when he said: "Whoever imitates a people is one of them." (Ahmad & Abu Dawood) and he sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam did indeed warn us: "O Muslims! You will imitate the nations before you very closely to the extent that if they went into a lizard's hole, you would enter it as well” his companions, may Allah be pleased with them, inquired: “(Do you mean) the Jews and Christians, O Messenger of Allah?” He sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam replied: "Who else?” (Bukhari & Muslim). The Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam also said: "The Day of Judgment will not come until my Nation closely imitates the nations before them.” It was asked: “Like the Persians and Romans (those who hold power), Messenger of Allah?” He sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam replied: "Who are the nations (I could mean) except those?” (Bukhari).

So obviously, if a Muslimah is going to imitate anyone, it should be the women of the early Sahaba right, so does that mean that modern (this time period) clothing is out of the question? I know alot of sisters have heard that the only option that they have is to wear a traditonal abaya as an overgarment. Whoever has taught them this usually uses the hadith above "whoever imitates a people is one of them” to prove the ruling that an overgarment must consist of one solid, opaque piece. I am an abaya girl myself but I know that solely using a hadith and establishing it as a ruling is incorrect. Ayat from the Qu`ran and ahadith are the raw materials which the jurists use to provide the istilaal (rulings).

Answer is, it doesn't, but one has to be very careful of not to compromise the conditions of hijab which modern and cultural clothing is often ill-designed for. The Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam advised us to take what is good of culture and leave what is bad of it (what goes against the teachings of Islam). Islam accepts (and indeed absorbs) the cultures and traditions of other societies on the condition that they do not violate the Shariah. The wording of the hadith [in question] is general and on the face of it seems to suggest that *any* emulation/imitation makes you from that nation, additionally, as stated, it doesn’t suggest that it is a bad thing (being from the nation you emulate) since the Qur’an has stated “We have made you into nations so that you may know one another”, so immediately there is a problem of defining what is meant by the hadith.

We can find evidence in the Sunnah that suggests that Muslims are to refrain from any unislamic behaviour (doing things that could be seen as unislamic behaviour such as displaying sexual beauty or ostentatious displays of wealth or pride of affiliation with any other group other than Islam in their public clothing, as well as doing anything that might leave some doubt in the minds of the disbelievers if you are a Muslim or not, or idenifies you as following a practice of the disbelievers that is forbidden or disaproved of in Islam). Think of when the call to prayer was being designed for example. The Muslims could have used either the horn or Jews or the bell of the Christians to announce when salat was to begin, but that might have confused people and led to people assuming they were other than the Muslims. If your clothing or appearence is confusing as such (even if is meets all the requirements or what must be covered and what that garment consists of) then it fails to meet the requirements of the hadith that says we are not to imitate the disbelievers.

The first thing that must be discussed in the issue of hijab, is that hijab is not the headscarf or even simply modest clothing. It is the entire veil of modesty and protection that is a right given to all women and men by their Creator which includes lowering their eyes from what is harmful, also their minds and hearts from such things. It the right of each individual to be judged solely for their right actions and piety, and modest hijab should help decrease vanity of an individual, and increases idealogical and spiritual success, being that ideas and effort are more valued in the public sphere than physical bodies and beauty which are often irrelevant to being productive in the work place, or in a learning environment, and can belie the actual depth of spiritual achievment. Modest clothing is only complimentary to this pursuit, not the aim of it. So called `shariah` laws of governments enforcing hijab and meteing out punishments for those who do not wear what is termed ``appropraite hijab`` are in erre, because there is nothing in the guidance of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam to say that another man or another woman can legislate a punishment for a woman who disregards the obligations set out clearly in the Qu`ran, but this is the realm of the Creator, not the Created. There can be no earthly punishment inflicted on those men and women who do not wear Islamic clothing. It is not an issue for men and other women to discuss about a Muslimah if she disregards an ayah pertaining to herself, or to try and punish her for not fulfilling a commandment about hijab. Their job is only to warn her.

That having been said, for the believing woman to ignore a commandment written in the holy Qu`ran, is to ignore Allah subhanhu wa ta ala, and to risk being ignored by Him on the day He subhanhu wa ta ala admits the believers into Jannah. The first commandment revealed in the Qu`ran pertaining to a woman dress (her hijab) was the commandment to wear a ``jilbab``. Scholars know that the commandment for jilbab came before the ayah about khimar (the headscarf) because there are ahadith that attribute the ayah about khimar to the Medina period (after the early Muslims had already migrated there), hadith stating that the women of Ansar (a people in Medina that converted to Islam and sheltered the persecuted Muslims from Mecca) made their khimars from their overgarments (their jilbabs). As will be discussed, and the hadith that denotes the time period presented, the jilbab was the first condition of a Muslim woman's physical dress.

In the Quran, Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 (33:59) says:

Ya ayyuha an-Nabiyy qul li azwajika wa banatika wa nisa al-mu'minin yudnina alayhinna min jalabib hinna; dhalika adna an yu'rafna fa laa yu'dhayn. Wa kana Allahu Ghafur Rahim

O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their JALABIB close around them; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle.

The word "jalabib" is the plural of "jilbab". Clearly, this ayah states a command for Muslim women to wear a garment which Allah subhanhu wa ta ala has called "jilbab".

In addition to this there are hadiths record how the sahabiyat (rAa) went about obeying Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 when it was revealed: Narrated Umm Salama, Umm al-Mu'minin: When the verse, "That they should draw their jalabib close around them" was revealed, the women of Ansar came out as if they had crows over their heads by wearing jalabib. (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 32 #4090).

And there is more even than this. Some of the women remained in seclusion and never went out so that they did not own the garment called "jilbab". The hadiths record that the Prophet commanded the women to come out for the Eid gathering, and what he said about the issue of the garment called "jilbab": Narrated Umm Atiyya: We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and screened women to the religious gatherings and invocation of the Muslims on the two Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from the musalla. A woman asked, "O Messenger of Allah! What about one who does not have a jilbab?". He said, "Let her borrow the jilbab of her companion".(Sahih Bukhari Book 8 #347) If it were halal for a sister to go outdoors without the garment called "jilbab", why didn't the Prophet allow the women to do this? But instead, he told them that they must find the garment called "jilbab" to wear, even if they had to borrow one from a friend. The obligation is plain for the believing women: it is a disobedience of Allah subhanhu wa ta ala and of His messenger for a woman to go outdoors if she is not wearing the garment called "jilbab". There are those who argue that the jilbab was worn primarily to distinguish a woman as a Muslim but hijab is enough to do that now so do we still have to wear it and the answer would be yes, because it is commandment in the Qu`ran that was never revoked by the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam and this message was for all peoples for all times. Jilbab was made fard, and that is not argued by any of the companions or Salaf, but what exactly jilbab is, and how much it must cover, is something the Muslims are allowed to have different opinions on, because it is something which the four madh'habs (Shafi`ì, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Maliki) have different opinions on.

The opinion that nothing but the hands and face must show being fard with the jilbab (as an obligation) is the majority opinion, and the hanbali fiqh interpets that the face must be covered also). I will highlight both valid sides of this debate which has its place in the realm of the scholars in a post of a later date but I am of the opinion that while the niqab INDEED does have its place in Islam, it is not a religious obligation in the way that a headscarf and overgarment are. It is something that may be done for reward as is the majority opinion of the scholars. In the very least, it is perfectly halal and was an action of the Prophet`s wives (may Allah subhanu wa ta ala be pleased with them) so no muslimah should call down the practice of a fellow muslim sister in Islam, and fail to defend her rights by stating that the niqab is a practice outside of Islam. There is much evidence to say it is not an obligation, but it is certainly a valid and halal part of the religion.

Since there many state that there are no Islamic illustrations of 7th century jilbab, it is not at all clear if the modern jilbab (commonly referred to as the abaya) is the same garment as that referred to in the Qu`ran. Some modern Muslims insist that the contemporary jilbab and the garment described in the Qur'an and the hadith are exactly the same, and that the Qur'an therefore requires the believer to wear these garments, while other modern Muslims think that so long as garment meets the requirements of jilbab by covering the necessary areas in the same manner it can be composed of whatever garment or garments the discerning Muslimah feels most comfortable in. So what does the Qu`ran and the ahadith state jilbab was and what did it have cover and what manner did it have to be worn in to count as jilbab, one is left wondering.

The Scholars of the four madhabs and all of the companions are unanimous that the garment called jilbab is fard from studying the various ahadith, and the scholars formed two vaild opinions about what the jilbab might be. That the jilbab is a loose outergarment like a coat or cloak or that it is a sheet covering the entire body except for the eyes. The coat/cloak opinion is the majority and the sheet but for the eyes, the minority. Both opinions are valid, but there are no opinions that state that loose clothing or a shalwar kameez is ok and counts as jilbab.

Why do the scholars say that the jilbab is an outergarment? Why aren't loose modest clothes without anything worn underneath of them what is talked about in the Qu'ran?

There is one thing that all the scholars referenced above are agreed on and that is that the garment called "jilbab" is an outergarment. Their only disagreement is in how much of the body the jilbab is to cover. How did the scholars derive that the jilbab is an outergarment? There are two ways to do this. First, they might just look up the definition of the word "jilbab" in a dictionary of classical Arabic. Second, they might verify for themselves by intelligent analysis of the Quran that the jilbab is an outergarment. We can look at both of these sources.

What is the defintion of the word "jilbab" in Arabic? The definitive dictionary of classical Arabic, Lisan al-Arab by ibn al-Mandhur, provides the following definition, "The jilbab is the outergarment, mantle, or cloak. It is derived from the word tajalbaba, which means to clothe. Jilbab is the outer sheet or covering which a woman wraps around her ON TOP OF HER GARMENTS to cover herself from head to toe. It hides her body completely" (Lisan al-Arab, volume 7, page 273) The dictionary Al-Qamus al-Muhit by Abu Tahir al-Fayruzabadi provides the definition, "The jilbab...is that which CONCEALS THE CLOTHES like a cover" The dictionary Al-Sihah by Jawhari provides the definition, "The jilbab is the cover and some say it is a sheet. Jilbab has been mentioned in the hadiths with the meaning of sheet, which the woman WRAPPED OVER HER CLOTHES". Of course, this dictionary meaning COULD have just evolved from scholars opinions so I want to see what the Qu`ran has to say about it all.

Surah an-Nur ayah 31 (24:31) reads as follows: Wa qul li al-mu'minat yaghdudna min absarihinna wa yahfazna furujahunna wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa maa zahara min haa wal-yadribna bi khumurihinna ala juyubihinna; wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa li bu'ulatihinna aw aba'ihinna aw aba'i bu'ulatihinna aw abna'ihinna aw abna'i bu'ulatihinna aw ikhwanihinna aw bani ikhwanihinna aw bani akhawatihinna aw nisa'ihinna aw maa malakat aymanu hunna aw at-tabi'ina ghayri ulu'l-irbat min ar-rijal aw at-tifl alladhina lam yazharu ala awrat an-nisa wa laa yadribna bi arjulihinna li yu'lama maa yukhfina min zenatahinna. Wa tubu ilaAllahi jami'an, ayyuha al-mu'minun la'allakum tuflihun

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their adornment except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms, and not to display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful.

This ayah lists a number of things that Muslim sisters are to do:
1) Lower the gaze (from looking at what is haram to be seen of men).
2) Guard the private parts. This means not to let them be seen or touched by who is haram to see or touch.
3) Conceal all of the body and its decorations except "what is apparent of it". Most scholars are agreed that the face and the hands are "what is apparent of it". Some scholars say that only the eyes are "what is apparent of it".
4.) Wear a khimar (headcovering) and extend it to cover the bosom. This means that it covers the hair, the neck, the shoulders, and the upper chest.
5.) That the husband, mahram relatives, women, slaves, male servants who do not feel sexual desire, and children are the only people who can see more of the woman than "what is apparent of it".
6.) Not stamp the feet or otherwise act so that what is hidden becomes known to others. This means do not make noise purposefully from anklets or bracelets or high heel shoes in an effort to attract attention to à woman`s movements.

It can clearly be seen from this analysis that Allah subhanhu wa ta ala in Surah an-Nur ayah 31 already commands a woman that when non-mahram men are present, she is to wear clothing that is loose and opaque plus a headscarf (referred to in the Quran as khimar) so that with these garments, she covers everything but her face and her hands. If this were all that was necessary, why has Allah subhanhu wa ta ala also revealed Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59? For this reason, the garment called "jilbab" that has been commanded in Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 must be something in addition to the modest clothing. This is how the scholars derive the obvious interpretation that that the garment called "jilbab" is some type of outergarment, something that is worn on top of the modest clothing commanded in Surah an-Nur ayah 31.

Surah an-Nur ayah 60 (24:60) provides an exemption for certain women in regard to hijab (and for me personally this is the most importan bit of evidence that jilbab as an overgarment is fard). It reads as follows: Wa al-qawa'idu min an-nisa allati laa yarjuuna nikahan fa laysa alayhinna junahun an yada'na thiyab hunna ghayra mutabarrijat bi zenat. Wa an yasta'fifna khayru la hunna. WaAllahu Sami'un Alim

And the elderly women, those who do not have hope of marriage, there is no fault on them that they lay aside (some of) their clothing as long as they are not making a display of their adornment. And that they refrain is better for them. And Allah is the Hearer, the Knower

Here is an interesting puzzle. Elderly women who have no hope of getting married again are allowed to "lay aside (some of) their clothing" - but they are restricted from making a display of their adornment. How can a woman lay aside any part of her clothing without making a display of her body? If all she were wearing was the the loose modest clothing (and that was her jilbab) then she would be naked. The only possible answer is that she is laying aside an extra layer. When she takes off the extra layer, the layer of clothing that she is wearing under it will still cover all of her body that must be covered. Contrary to popular belief, the hijab is not allowed to removed at old age by women in public, because this means that the woman would not have to wear it during salat while it is well known that the khimar (hijab-headcovering) must always been worn while prayers are preformed else the salat is invalid, as testified to by Aisha (r.a).
So what is this "extra layer" that Muslim women are wearing over their modest clothes---it is is their jilbab. What else can it be? What we have here is that the Muslim woman is commanded by Surah an-Nur ayah 31 that when she is around non-mahram men, she must cover all of her body except her face and her hands. This rule is always in force whenever non-mahram men are present, whether she is indoors or outdoors. But when she goes outdoors, she is to wear an extra layer, an outergarment, over the clothes she is already wearing (on account of Surah an-Nur ayah 31). This extra layer or outergarment is the jilbab. The only exception to the rule regarding dress is that elderly women who do not have hope of marriage may leave off the jilbab as long as they continue to wear other clothing that covers all of their bodies except the face and hands. Surah an-Nur ayah 60 would not even make sense unless the jilbab is an extra layer, an outergarment worn over the normal clothes. This is another reason why modest clothing is not enough.

So, the jilbab is an OUTERGARMENT, but why?

Modesty is always a concern whenever non-mahram men are present, and for the purposes of modesty a sister must wear a khimar and loose, opaque clothing so that she covers everything but her face and hands whenever non-mahram men are present. This is what has been commanded by Surah an-Nur ayah 31. It is therefore correct to say that shalwar kameez or other conservative outfits, and the khimar, are sufficient for the purposes of modesty. But when a sister goes outdoors or in public, there may be other concerns beyond modesty. Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59 mentions these concerns in giving the reason for the command of jilbab, when it says "that is better so that they are recognized and not annoyed". From this we can see that the jilbab has two purposes:1) To make the sister recognizable as a Muslim woman 2) To protect her from being "annoyed", i.e., harassed. In conclusion, the jilbab is not primarily for the purpose of modesty, which is satisfied by the khimar and conservative clothes, but is for the additional purposes of identity and protection, issues that are only factors of concern outdoors and in open public places. Some may say this is not necessary in this day an age since Muslim women in modest clothing are not mistaken for prostitutes, but it was a condition of a woman`s dress that was never removed. It is for your protection, and it identifies you as Muslimah different from traditional Christian and Jewish dress, where similiar modest clothing is worn. Islam is the only religion where an overgarment was required, and it was to keep the Muslims from resembling the disbelievers.

What are the rules for the jilbab?

The Muslim woman must wear jilbab whenever she leaves the house and the scholars have determined that jilbab should not reveal her physical form by being tight-fitting or see through in nature. Booty-hugging abayas don`t count as jilbab. The scholars have differed as to just how much the jilbab must cover. As explained above, there are two opinions on this.

The first opinion of the scholars is, in effect, that the jilbab or outergarment should cover everything but the face and the hands. There are two sub-opinions here. The first sub-opinion is that there must be a single garment that covers everything that must be covered. This would mean that the garment called "jilbab" must be something like the garments known as "abaya" and "chador". The second sub-opinion is that a combination of garments that cover what the jilbab is to cover may substitute for the jilbab. Specifically, these scholars permit the head to be covered by the headscarf (khimar) and the feet to covered by socks and shoes. As long as a sister covers her head and neck with the khimar, then her jilbab does not need to cover over her head, but may be like a coat, which just covers from the shoulders on down (or a long tunic and skirt worn over other modest clothing). And as long as her feet are completely covered with socks and shoes, then her jilbab does not need to come down to the ground but may come down only to the ankles. This is the majority position. We can say that according to the majority opinion of the scholars, the garment called "jilbab" is any garment that meets the following criteria: this garment is an outergarment; an extra layer; something worn over the normal clothingif the khimar is not worn, this garment must cover from the top of the head on down, but if the khimar is worn, this garment only needs to cover from the shoulders on downsimilarly, if socks are not worn, this garment must cover down to the ground, but if socks are worn so that the feet are completely covered, this garment only needs to cover down to the anklesthis garment must be made of fabric that is thick and opaque so that it does not show what is beneath it, and it must be loose so that it does not reveal the contours of what is beneath it. These scholars are agreed that the jilbab is to be worn outdoors and in open public places like the market, the masjid, etc. It does not need to be worn indoors, such as in the house or a building where access is controlled. This is because the jilbab serves the purposes of asserting the Islamic identity of a sister, and of protecting her from harassment, which are concerns only outdoors and in public. The rules in Surah an-Nur ayah 31 govern the dress of the Muslim woman indoors. Thus a sister may wear the khimar and modest clothing indoors, and this is her hijab for this location. However, the jilbab is part of her hijab when she is outdoors or in open public places.

According to the second opinion of the scholars, the jilbab must cover the entire body except for the eyes. Just as most of the scholars who hold the first opinion allow the khimar, coat, and socks and shoes to substitute for a one-piece outergarment that covers everything but the face and hands, so most of the scholars who hold the second opinion allow multiple pieces to substitute for the one-piece outergarment or sheet that covers everything but the eyes. These multiple pieces may include a separate affixed face veil (niqab), a headscarf (khimar), a coat or cloak (jilbab), and socks and shoes. However, these scholars would strongly emphasize that the coat-jilbab is not the same as the Quranic jilbab. The Quranic jilbab must cover everything but the eyes. It should also be noted that most of these scholars also hold that Surah an-Nur ayah 31 mandates the covering of everything but the eyes around non-mahram men, even when the sister is indoors. It is not clear if these scholars would allow modest clothes, a khimar, and a niqab or if they do require the jilbab indoors (i.e., if non-mahram men are present). Sisters who prefer this opinion should consult a scholar for specific advice on this question. Note: Some scholars of this group hold that the jilbab must be a one-piece outergarment that covers everything but the eyes. This is the position of the Saudi ulama.

What we must always keep clear in our minds is that there is the Quranic jilbab, which is any outergarment that meets the criteria set out in the Shari'a; and there may also be a "cultural jilbab" that refers to a very specific style. As Muslims we are responsible for following the Shari'a not Arab culture. When a word is used in the Quran or hadiths, we need to give it the definition it has according to the Shari'a, not the definition it might have in Arab culture. So whether you wear an abaya, a chador, a djellaba, or indeed a "jilbab", be sure that it meets the criteria of the Shari'a: It is an outergarment, an extra layer, something that you wear over your clothes. It is made of thick, opaque fabric so that nobody can see what is under it. It is loose so that nobody can see the contours of your figure. If you are going to wear a coat-like jilbab, be sure that your head and neck are covered by your khimar and that your feet are completely covered by your socks and shoes (and, if you follow that opinion, that your face is covered by your niqab). None of the scholars have mentioned pants to be an overgarment so they are not referred to as jilbab but if the pants are indeed loose enough that they conceal modest clothing and the shape of the body underneath of them (leggings, skinny jeans, and underwear don`t count as such clothing) ---they might be adapted (IF THEY ARE LOOSE ENOUGH YOU COULD FIT LOOSE CLOTHING UNDERNEATH) with a VERY long tunic top or dress over top. I will do a post on this, but I do not recommend this as none of the scholars support this opinion, but I know there are some cases where women have to wear pants. It is safer to compose a jilbab out of coat, or abaya, but since some scholars have made it permissable to have the jilbab composed of different pieces since the khimar was cut from the jilbab, one might also wear a modest skirt and tunic over their modest clothing and have this suffice, though it is safer to wear a single piece garment. Allah and His Messenger know best.

From studying the subject of jilbab as I have, here is my opinion. It is not an istilal or fatwa, just my opinion:

I am of the opinion that jilbab and khimar are fard and the niqab is mustahaab (or in the very least halal). Along with the majority of scholars I think that the jilbab is a non-see through garment that covered everything but the face and hands, and that it may consist of more than one piece since women of the Ansaar made their headcoverings from the extra hanging cloth of their overgarments when the ayah precribing the obligation of khimar was revealed. Although historically this garment consisted of a solid-piece garment such similar to an abaya, with the addition of the headscarf worn in the Shariah prescribed manner, there are no ahadith that state that if the garment indeed is worn over the woman's usual clothing, that it cannot consist of more than these two pieces, such as a a long coat, and a skirt (I will do a seperate post on pants very soon because there are VERY few pants that can be worn as overgarments and if indeed you do believe the Qu'ran is perfect an overgarment is something that cannot be rejected-the condition of it was never lifted and it was a condition for all the believing peooples for all time). What the overgamrent (called jilbab) consists of can be debated by the different madhabs and each opinion is valid. The fact is though, the abaya is the safest approach to wear, since it is closest to the historical garment when covering the conditions of an overgarment (or a cloak that covers even the head because this is what the ansar wore before the ayah about khimar was revealed). But that does not mean that an educated woman (on the subject of hijab) cannot adapt other pieces of clothing found in today's malls cover the same principles.

The principles are
a. the piece or peices of clothing that form the jilbab must be worn over other clothing or be loose enough to accomodate decent clothing worn underneath. Leggings and bra are considered undergarments dearies (much love my sisters) and they don't count as clothing. If you can't wear loose pants under your tryingtopassforjilbab pants then those pants are not loose enough to meet the conditions of a woman's dress as prescribed the the Qu'ran and you should be wearing a loose garment over them at LEAST to your mid-calf but ankle is better (because there is NO one in the Ulema that says showing your ankle`s form is halal).
b. The overgarment must be loose enough to not show the shape of your body such as your breasts, your hips, the indent of your waist, or your butt. Anything else counts as clothed but naked and there is a hadith where the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam narrates that in hell there will be women you were fully covered but were nonetheless naked. Tight clothing counts as such.
c. It cannot be see-through. If the overgarments reveals anything that should be covered because of its transparency it counts as clothed but naked.
d. It cannot make an ostentatious show of wealth through its decoration or design or draw attention to sexuality, or be worn in such such a manner to stand out and be the center of attention. At the same time it cannot be styled in a deliberate manner to look messy or unkempt or deliberately so plain that one stands out from the people in that manner. The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam resented us all to do anything in extremes, and showing off for mankind is considered a form of shirk. Our purpose in dressing should be to please Allah subhanahu wa ta ala and to be presentable and draw people to Islam (not to make them resent us for a more pious-than-thou attitude, for arousing lusts, or for making people feel inferior to our means and properties). Simple decoration was permitted in a few hadith. Ostentatious displays of wealth were NEVER.

It should not contain messages or symbols of the disbeliver's message that are contrary to the message and teachings of Islam. Nor should the clothing contain images of living creatures in anything other than abstract pattern, or faces of people.
f. it should not resemble another religious group in a way that confuses others about whether or not you are a Muslim.