Is the argument using the jilbab and the statement of Allah the Exalted, “They should draw their jilbabs over their faces,” to prove the obligation of covering the face, an incorrect argument?

The questioner : But the result we have here, O Shaykh, may Allah prolong your life—may Allah reward you with good—the actual result here is that the woman walks in the streets and roads while fully covered, but with a light covering.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, this exists with us. We are speaking about the meaning of the verse, not about what exists. Now I ask you a question: Is this covering called a handkerchief transparent, meaning you can see the woman on the road, or is her face not seen? What do you call it? We call it a handkerchief.

The questioner : A handkerchief.

The Shaykh : A handkerchief, okay. Was this handkerchief mentioned in the verse?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : We are not speaking about handkerchiefs; we are speaking about the jilbabs: . It is not your argument using the handkerchief that appeared later, nor is it your argument using the black glasses, these spectacles, because all of these are modern things. Your argument using the jilbab and the statement of Allah the Exalted: , your argument is incorrect.
As for the fact that a woman can lower a handkerchief over her face so that she can see the road but her face is not seen, this is our stock, we Syrians and Albanians and so on. We do not need you to remind us what your women do, but our discussion is what is the meaning of ?
The handkerchief did not exist in that time, and even if it did exist, it was not mentioned, neither in the verse nor in the hadith. All that was mentioned is: .