Verse 24:31 - revealing beauty

[Wakas]

That is my understanding (as in it's not a sin) due to the parts wherein it states about those who are not aware of composition of women (i.e. it must relate to what is different) and striking/putting forth feet in a manner that would reveal what they are hiding of their beauty (i.e. this can only reveal limited number of body parts).

Also in the article it already differentiates the types of zeenat, what is hidden and what is apparent so 7:31 is a non starter.

Also see later in article where it says one can discard garments as long as one does not show off with their beauty. How would you interpret that?
I am open to other understandings, what is yours.

[l-nuni]

That is my understanding (as in it's not a sin) due to the parts wherein it states about those who are not aware of composition of women (i.e. it must relate to what is different) and striking/putting forth feet in a manner that would reveal what they are hiding of their beauty (i.e. this can only reveal limited number of body parts).

Also in the article it already differentiates the types of zeenat, what is hidden and what is apparent so 7:31 is a non starter.

Also see later in article where it says one can discard garments as long as one does not show off with their beauty. How would you interpret that?
I am open to other understandings, what is yours.

You missed the transitions. 'Private parts' pertain to spouses (23:6 70:30). Apparent are the buttocks, e.g., Kardashians can't hide

Transition to bosoms, e.g., breastfeeding can be in the presence of husband, father, etc., not in public.

Transition to a sexy walk includes shaking breasts and buttocks.

Thinking about old women reminds me of years ago on a Caribbean beach, where an 80+ year old woman was topless; I still can't unsee that. Although the young, gorgeous woman a few meters away, also topless, was memorable too.

24:60 and the postmenopausal among the womenfolk the ones not desiring marriage so not is upon them guilt that they put aside garments theirs other than displaying bizīnatin and that refrain they better for them and the God hearer knower

[Wakas]

peace,

Firstly it says "guard" furuj not "cover". Of course cover will likely be a part of guarding but cover/guard are not equivalent terms imo.

My understanding may seem unusual for today but we have to remember back then (and still today in some places) houses were not multi-room, completely concealed toilets/bathrooms etc. For example, to my knowledge, toilets (i.e. hole in the ground) were actually outside the house and sometimes away from the house, so I'm not sure if they had perfect concealment in those facilities. Then there is also breastfeeding, bathing, changing clothes, medical procedures, giving birth etc.
I imagine if it was an obligation to cover private parts and breasts in front of everyone except husband/mma this would cause significant stress and burden to women.

One way around this if it can be shown or understood as furuj is not part of zeenat hence it is mentioned separately, which I think is forming the basis of your understanding. This is a possible interpretation.

Thinking on 24:60, does it imply then that those of marriageable age seeking to get married / have sexual desire, it is a sin for them to put aside clothes (in the household the context seems to be). I would think yes.
So to reconcile the verses women of marriageable age/seeking to get married are not able to discard clothes in the household to general people (i.e. those unrelated) but it is not a sin to do so in front of those mentioned in 24:31. Of course the instances of this would be minimal due to the emphasis on modesty and 24:58-59 stating permission must be sought to enter into private chamber / undress, by anyone else it seems.

So the difference in our understandings is you say it is not a sin to show breasts (e.g. breastfeeding) to those mentioned in 24:31 in household/private (I agree) BUT you seem to imply it would be a sin to show furuj. I say it isn't and instances of this would be minimal due to what I said above - I'd imagine in practice this would mean furuj would only be shown inadvertently/accidentally in the household.

Currently I cant see a way to refute one for the other. Anyone?

[l-nuni]

Peace,

To be vigilant is to be mindful, encompassing the need to cover intimate parts. Once again, pay attention to the transitions. The concept of grown women prancing around naked, revealing their intimate parts to fathers, father-in-laws, sons, son-in-laws, nephews, and others is absurd and incestuous, irrespective of historical context.

Similarly, the advice provided is not time-specific (e.g., 33:59) and applicable for all times, including our present. Even in contemporary times, there are numerous tribes without modern amenities that consistently exhibit this decency—a cultural norm that has never wavered throughout history. Observe isolated islanders, Amazon jungle inhabitants, Australian aborigines, African bush tribes—all of whom uphold the decency of covering private parts in the presence of family members.

[smckee]

To l-nuni, I think it's important to know that incest was far less common in the past than it is now, especially with the sexualization of daily life (i.e. Game of Thrones). Coupled with the fact that privacy was far more limited and bathing suits didn't exist, this part of the verse makes total sense.

[smckee]

To Wakas, I would also like to add to you that swimsuits didn't exist, and all swimsuits nowadays are much to revealing. Therefore, this verse allows a safe place to properly swim.

[smckee]

In addition, modesty is for the general public as it is an important deterrent to harassment. I believe that an older woman does not need to wear an outer garment when in public but she should still cover up her body. Inside the house in front of the people mentioned in verse 24:31, it is allowed to expose the body.

[brook]

The key word is زينتهن. The believing women are forbidden to display their زينتهن except to their male servants without need. I asked believing woman: it is said that your زينتهن is parts of your body and that God allows you to display them to your male servants without (sexual) need.

Would you display your body to them?
No.
Why not?
Because what acually counts is MY sexual need.

[amin]

Strangers are always strangers, but within family and known people as they know each other and the limits, the risk of  abuse will be nill or less, its not the case with unknown people, as anyone can try something bad. Revealing beauty i think is showing the private parts. Nudity should be very common not long ago, the lack of proper cloths, the need of bathing, cleaning, changing dress etc.. and lesser private spaces.

Public places with more people is always safe compared to remote places, as theres always fear of some one coming for help and getting caught.

[good logic]

Peace All.
This is like opening a can of worms. Lots of situations, traditions and fashions There are all sorts of people, all sorts of intentions and all sorts of interpretations with people for modesty.

So ,who is GOD telling this to? Believing women that reverence GOD and are wearing a modest mind and attitude. Those that are not are not going to be forced if they do not listen and they will try things they should not.

So, in short modesty goes with practicality and morals. Does one expect a women to be uncomfortable at home with many layers of clothes? They have children to see to, things to do and some own time for them. With close family, dress code is relaxed and casual.
Societies change, fashions change and dress codes have a minimum showing. At least the private parts plus what is "decent" above that should be covered.. This will become common sense that will be accepted by society with morals in general.
The rest that wants to break rules and limits will challenge all rules including GOD s .
GOD bless you all.
Peace.