-
What Is Aurat
Can someone tell me what the actual definition of the word “aurat” is and how it applies to women and men?
Is the word “aurat” explained in verse 24:31?
Does the definition of “aurat” vary depending on the community and local residents?
-
18 Replies
-
What Is Aurat
updated 2 days, 7 hours ago
3 Members
·
18
Replies
-
Awrah means the parts of body to be covered. It applies to private parts only. It is universally accepted that the private parts between the legs and chest of woman is Awrah.
-
So, can we say that awrah refers to the way of dressing that should be observed according to the local customs and circumstances, sir?
-
-
Awrah is not dressing. It is private parts. Awrah should be covered.
-
Oh, I see. Now I understand a little better.
I understand that private parts must be covered, and the areas surrounding them must also be covered for better modesty.
But not covering the areas around the private parts (like the thighs and stomach) isn’t automatically a sin, because it depends on the local culture and society
I also understand that covering private areas is universally accepted—not just by Muslims, but non-Muslims agree on this as well. This means covering private areas is part of human nature. There might be some places where people don’t mind being naked, like public bathhouses in Japan (onsen), but that only applies to people of the same gender, not the opposite gender.
Am I correct, sir?
-
-
Private parts must be covered from everyone—both the opposite gender and the same gender—except one’s spouse.
-
I understand that, sir, but the intensity isn’t the same as with the opposite sex, is it, sir?
-
-
Yes, the difference is obvious but both are forbidden.
-
Hmm, so that’s how it is.
Sir, as I mentioned earlier, covering one’s private parts is something everyone in the world agrees on—even non-Muslims—so I can conclude that covering private areas is part of human nature.
What I want to ask is: we all know that whether clothing is modest or not depends on the local culture. So how is it that some people dress in a way that’s considered immodest or inappropriate, yet they still cover their private parts—even if they don’t cover them properly?
In some places, this kind of clothing is acceptable depending on whether the local culture permits it (such as wearing a bikini or speedo for men at the beach for swimming, as is common in the West)
Does this still count as covering the awrah? Or does it simply not fully meet the requirements?
Because as far as I know, since they are still trying not to be completely naked and are covering as much as minimum possible, this does not fall under the category of fawahish. Am I correct, sir?
deepl.com
DeepL AI Platform: Translation, Voice & API
Explore our AI suite and get more done: Translate speech, text, and media, or integrate the DeepL API.
-
-
The more revealing a dress is the more indecent it is. This is a universal norm too. Buy some culture allow in certain situation but still consider it indecent. Therefore bukini or more revealing dress is not allows in normal routine and on formal occasion.
The more revealing a dress is the more fuhush it is.
-
I agree that swimwear like bikinis or Speedos, which are typically worn only for swimming, shouldn’t be worn just anywhere (especially in formal settings or in everyday life). I think everyone agrees on this, including non-Muslims, which is why I’m focusing on specific places in accordance with local norms.
My question is, sir, does someone wearing such clothing still cover their awrah? even if it’s not fully covered
Because in my view, someone wearing a bikini or Speedo is different from someone who is completely naked
-
-
If private parts are covered the person has fulfilled the basic requirement. But the term Fwahish is also applied to exposing the parts adjacent to private parts.
-
i see…….thank you sir
-
But sir i want to ask
Is wearing revealing clothing like bikinis and Speedos
It is a minor sin or a major sin?
-
-
I think you are not taling and confusing the word with “satar” and “Hijab” when evloved. In its specific and literal meaing “aurat” refers to [Cover, hidden, intimate parts etc] upto this extent ‘aurat’ means the same. But if you are asking in islamic point of view, it would be different. Also, while transitioning from Arabic to Persian and Urdu, the word evolved to “which needs to be protected or covered” but still I assume that you are not talking about “satr” or “hijab” which epistemologically different.
-
There is no concept of Hijab in Islam. Both men and women have been asked to guard their private parts and their gazes. If women have adorned themseoves then they are asked to cover their adornment except for that which usually stays exposed. See the verses 24. 30- 31.
-
It is a matter of interpretation. Islam does not merely prohibit the final act of zina; it also seeks to block the pathways that may lead to it. Allah says:
“And do not approach zina…” (Qur’an 17:32)
The phrase “do not approach” (lā taqrabū) is broader than simply “do not commit.” This to mean avoiding conduct that can become a means toward unlawful sexual relations, such as illicit seclusion, flirtation, lustful gazing, indecent speech, and immodest exposure.
Qur’an 24:30–31 instructs believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and directs women regarding their adornment.
Qur’an 33:59 instructs believing women to draw their outer garments around themselves for recognition and protection.
Qur’an 7:26 speaks of clothing as a covering and adornment, while emphasizing that “the garment of righteousness” is best. Hence, modest dress serves social and moral purposes, including reducing sexual objectification and helping preserve chastity.
-
33.59 is for a given situation. If the situation is not there, the directive does not apply. This directive of putting on a big Chaadar was to counter the act of harassment. It was to end the excuses of the mischievous before the state launches an operation against them. It was not for normal circumstances.
-
The verse certainly arose in a particular social context involving harassment. However, the command is addressed not only to “the Prophet’s wives” but also to “the believing women” generally. The lesson is based on the generality of the wording, not merely the specificity of the occasion. Therefore, while the occasion explains why the verse was revealed, it does not necessarily restrict the ruling to that occasion.
My argument is that harassment, unwanted attention, and the need for dignified public interaction still exist today and will last till the End. Therefore, the rationale has not disappeared. Since, the above circumstances still exist, the verse is applicable to believing women in today’s life. Hence, I would not fully agree with the claim that 33:59 was only for a temporary circumstance and therefore no longer applies. The wording extends beyond the Prophet’s wives to all believing women, and the underlying concerns have not disappeared.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
