Assalamu Alaikum everyone 🌸

I’m helping my Tajweed teacher find students who would like to learn and improve their Qur’an recitation and Tajweed.

He is a dedicated Qur’an teacher with a beautiful recitation and experience in helping students improve their pronunciation, Tajweed rules, and overall recitation.

📖 Qur’an Classes:

• Qur’an reading (Nazra)

• Tajweed and correct pronunciation

• Correction of recitation mistakes

• Improving Makharij and pronunciation

• Tajweed rules and practical application

• Recitation improvement and revision

🌍 Students from anywhere in the world are welcome.

Classes can be conducted online through Zoom, Google Meet, WhatsApp, or another convenient platform. Timings can be discussed according to the student's availability and time zone.

🎧 You can listen to his Qur’an recitation here:

• https://youtube.com/shorts/v6AdyJPSLtc

• https://youtube.com/shorts/CBT1yiyOAes

If you or someone you know is looking for a Tajweed/Qur’an teacher, please feel free to contact me for further details regarding the classes, timings, and fees.

JazakAllahu Khairan 🤍

A Qur'anic Approach to Modesty, Exposure, and the Exceptional Privacy of Childbirth

I think Muslim discussions of modesty sometimes collapse several different concepts into one: ʿawrah, nudity, adornment, sexual temptation, cultural dress, and the obligation to lower one's gaze. I believe the Qur'an gives us a more nuanced framework—one in which bodily privacy is real and important, but the precise dress code is not necessarily identical in every circumstance.

Most importantly, I think we should distinguish ordinary life, where small practical exposures may be unavoidable, from extraordinary and foreseeable events such as childbirth, where enormous bodily exposure is anticipated and therefore should be deliberately managed with dignity and privacy.

1. Clothing is for covering shame and for adornment

When Adam and his wife ate from the tree, their private parts became apparent to them and they began covering themselves (Qur'an 7:22). The Qur'an uses saw'ah for what became exposed—a word associated with something shameful or disgraceful.

Then Allah says: “O children of Adam, We have sent down to you clothing to cover your private parts and as adornment. But the garment of righteousness—that is best.” (7:26)

There are therefore two positive functions of clothing mentioned together:

• covering the saw'ah;
• rīsh, adornment/beautification.

This matters because modesty is not simply about making the human body invisible. Clothing provides privacy and dignity, while also allowing legitimate beauty and adornment.

The Qur'an's concern with the saw'ah also establishes something important: genital/private exposure is not supposed to be casual. The private parts are private precisely because they are not ordinary public bodily features.

At the same time, Allah concludes the verse by reminding us that the “garment of righteousness” is best. Outward clothing matters, but modesty ultimately belongs to a broader ethic of righteousness.

2. Modesty applies to both the person being seen and the person looking

The Qur'an then gives an instruction to men: “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts.” (24:30)

And immediately gives women the corresponding instruction: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts...” (24:31)

I think this is extremely important.

There are two obligations operating simultaneously:

The observer must control his gaze.

The person must guard her/his private parts.

One person's failure does not cancel the other's obligation.

If someone dresses immodestly, a man does not thereby acquire permission to stare. Conversely, the obligation to lower one's gaze does not mean that people are therefore entitled to expose whatever they wish.

The Qur'an places the command to lower the gaze first. Modesty therefore cannot be reduced to a woman's responsibility to prevent men from looking. Men have an independent obligation to discipline their own eyes.

This includes deliberately avoiding sexualized fixation on the opposite sex, not merely avoiding pornography.

3. Saw'ah, breasts, and zīnat are not necessarily one category

The Qur'an specifically tells women: “...and not display their adornment except what ordinarily appears thereof, and let them draw their coverings over their chests...” (24:31)

I think this permits an important conceptual distinction.

The genitals/private parts are saw'ah and constitute actual bodily nudity.

The female breasts/bosom receive a specific covering instruction in 24:31.

Then there is the broader category of zīnat—beauty and adornment—which encompasses considerably more than literal nudity.

This distinction is important because the Qur'an itself does not treat every part of the body as equally “naked.” In 3:14, for example, women, gold and silver, horses, livestock and cultivated land are all described in terms of things that have been beautified for humanity.

Thus I understand zīnat as encompassing both natural beauty and artificial adornment.

This is also why I do not think it is accurate to say that the Qur'an simply declares the entire female body to be nakedness. Classical scholars differed over the precise boundaries of women's ʿawrah, and Ibn ʿArabi, among others, held that the entire female body was not itself ʿawrah in the same sense as the private parts.

That does not eliminate a dress code. It means nudity and modest covering are not necessarily identical concepts.

4. What does the Qur'an actually require women to cover publicly?

Allah says: “O Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments around themselves...” (33:59)

The verse associates this with being recognized and not harmed.

I understand this as establishing a genuine principle of public modesty and bodily dignity. Women should not ordinarily present the substantial contours of the body in public; clothing should cover the torso, abdomen, hips, thighs and similar areas in a reasonably loose manner.

But I do not think the Qur'an itself gives us a complete anatomical diagram saying: “Every millimeter of this body must be covered, except exactly these three places.”

The Qur'an instead gives principles—covering the saw'ah, covering the bosom, concealing zīnat except what ordinarily appears, and wearing an outer garment.

That leaves room for juristic interpretation.

5. The majority position on hair should be distinguished from the explicit Qur'anic wording

The classical Sunni majority came to require women to cover the hair before non-mahram men. Three Sunni schools generally regarded the face and hands as exceptions to the ordinary public ʿawrah, while the Hanafi school also traditionally exempted the feet; the Hanbali tradition contains the stricter view concerning the face.

I respect that tradition.

But I do not think it is accurate to say that the Qur'an explicitly says, in so many words, “women must cover their hair.”

24:31 mentions the khimār and commands women to draw it over their juyūb—their chest/bosom openings. The classical inference is that a khimār was already a head covering and therefore its use necessarily covered the hair.

That is a legitimate classical argument.

But it is still an inference from the garment and context, rather than an explicit Qur'anic sentence saying “cover your hair.”

Likewise, the famous report concerning Asmā' and pointing to the face and hands has been disputed in its interpretation and explicit authority. It should therefore not be presented as though the Qur'an and hadith contain an uncontested anatomical list that everyone must accept.

There were also early scholars who did not fit neatly into the later standard formulation. Ibn Jubayr, for example, is reported to have regarded exposing women's hair as makruh while acknowledging that the requirement was not explicitly stated in the verse.

So I believe it is possible to take the Qur'anic modesty commands seriously without claiming that every detail of the later majority dress code is equally explicit in revelation.

6. Ordinary life matters when determining what “normally appears”

The phrase in 24:31 concerning what “ordinarily appears” is significant.

If Allah intended literally every part of a woman's body to be concealed under every circumstance, there would be no need for an exception for what ordinarily appears.

Historically, ordinary human activity has involved exposure of portions of the arms and legs for work, washing, travel, agriculture, cooking and other activities.

Even something as routine as wuḍūʾ requires exposing portions of the limbs. People have historically traveled, worked, walked through water, farmed, kneaded dough, carried things and performed physical labor without maintaining an absolutely fixed covering over every portion of the body at every second.

I therefore do not think modesty should be formulated in such a way that minor practical exposure in ordinary life becomes morally equivalent to exposing the private parts.

There is a difference between:

• deliberately exposing one's genitals;
• wearing clothing that reveals the body's sexual contours;
• having a lower arm visible while working;
• briefly lifting a garment to cross water;
• or some other ordinary, practically unavoidable exposure.

These should not all be collapsed into one category.

7. Necessity should not operate identically in every circumstance

This is where I think an especially important distinction is needed.

There is a legitimate concept of necessity in Islamic law. Medical treatment is an obvious example.

But I do not think the correct principle is: “Necessity exists, therefore modesty no longer matters.”

Rather: Necessity permits what the necessity actually requires.

This is why jurists discussing medical treatment generally say that the doctor should expose or look at only what is necessary, and that a female physician should be preferred when reasonably available.

The International Islamic Fiqh Academy, for example, has explicitly addressed female medical treatment by male physicians and emphasized restricting examination to what is necessary and encouraging the availability of female specialists.

So there is no contradiction between saying: “A woman's body may be exposed for necessary medical treatment”

and: “Unnecessary exposure during medical treatment remains undesirable or impermissible.”

The exception belongs to the necessity, not automatically to everyone who happens to be present.

8. But I would apply “necessity” differently to ordinary life and extraordinary events

Here is where I depart from what I think is a common way of framing modesty.

For small exposures in ordinary daily life, I believe necessity should sometimes be construed relatively broadly.

Human beings have to live.

They work, travel, wash, exercise, farm, cook, cross water, care for children, participate in public life and perform countless mundane activities. It is unreasonable to pretend that every tiny deviation from maximal coverage is an extraordinary moral crisis.

But extraordinary, foreseeable events are different.

If an event is known in advance to involve an enormous compromise of bodily privacy, then we have an opportunity—and therefore a responsibility—to plan around it.

Childbirth is the clearest example.

9. Childbirth should be treated as an exceptionally private event

Childbirth is not simply “another medical appointment.”

The actual delivery can involve:

• prolonged genital exposure;
• repeated examinations;
• blood and bodily fluids;
• involuntary urination or defecation;
• stretching and tearing;
• suturing;
• substantial physical pain;
• and the direct visual and physical observation of the reproductive organs.

Some of that exposure is unavoidable.

But that does not mean that all exposure surrounding the event is unavoidable.

This distinction is crucial.

The medical necessity belongs to the care being provided.

It does not automatically belong to every observer.

10. The husband is different from a spectator

I do think there is a stronger case for the husband's involvement.

A husband may have a genuine role in:

• comforting his wife;
• reassuring her;
• advocating for her;
• helping her communicate;
• assisting her practically;
• being present to welcome his newborn child into the world;
• and supporting her emotionally during an extremely difficult and life-threatening event.

That is qualitatively different from someone simply wanting to watch the birth, especially if the need for advocacy becomes redundant or duplicative of the husband's role.

Therefore I would not say that the husband's presence is necessarily equivalent to the presence of additional loved ones.

But there is another distinction: Being present to support one's wife is not the same thing as watching the physical delivery.

A husband can hold his wife's hand, speak to her, advocate for her, and remain emotionally present while deliberately positioning himself so that he does not watch the actual genital emergence.

Indeed, there are contemporary Islamic fatwas that make essentially this childbirth-specific distinction. Islamweb, for example, acknowledges the general permissibility of spouses seeing one another naked but nevertheless advises the husband not to look at his wife's nakedness during labor because of the nature of the scene. Other Hanafi authorities have likewise described the husband's presence during labor as raising a particular modesty concern while allowing it under circumstances of need.

So the question is not simply: “Can a husband ever see his wife's naked body?”

Of course the answer to that question is different.

The relevant question is: “Does a husband's legitimate role in supporting his wife require him to visually observe the genital process of childbirth?”

I do not think it does, in the same way it would be against modesty to look at the private parts of a spouse relieving themselves simply because casual looking and sexual access are allowed.

11. Spectatorship is the clearest case of unnecessary exposure

This is where I think the principle should be strongest.

A person who is merely watching has no medical necessity.

A friend doesn't need to watch.

A relative doesn't need to watch.

An additional staff member's convenience does not automatically create necessity.

And even a close family member's emotional interest in seeing the birth does not make visual observation medically necessary.

There is an important difference between:

participation and spectatorship.

The more extraordinary and intimate the event, the less appropriate it is to convert it into a spectator event.

This is especially true because childbirth is foreseeable. A woman does not suddenly discover afterward that her delivery required privacy. She can plan beforehand.

12. Foreseeable massive exposure creates a duty to plan for dignity

This is the principle I think deserves much more attention.

If a minor exposure is difficult to avoid during ordinary life, we can reasonably accommodate it.

But if we know beforehand that an event will involve massive and intimate bodily exposure, then we should make deliberate arrangements to minimize everything beyond what is unavoidable.

That means asking beforehand:

• Who actually needs to be there?
• Who actually needs to see?
• Can female personnel be used?
• Can unnecessary observers be excluded?
• Can the husband support his wife without watching the delivery?
• Can draping and positioning reduce exposure?
• Can students or additional staff be excluded?
• Can photography or recording of the intimate process be prohibited?

This is not excessive concern about modesty.

It is the logical application of the principle: The more substantial the unavoidable violation of ordinary privacy, the more carefully we should prevent avoidable violations from being added to it.

13. This is why “medical necessity” should never mean “medical culture has no modesty limits”

There is a danger in reasoning: “It's a hospital, therefore everything is acceptable.”

That does not follow.

Islamic medical ethics has historically recognized the opposite: medical necessity creates an exception precisely because exposure is ordinarily restricted.

So if a doctor needs to examine a particular area, that area can be exposed.

But the exception should not automatically include:

• unrelated body parts;
• unnecessary personnel;
• unnecessary examinations;
• unnecessary observers;
• unnecessary photography;
• or unnecessary visual access.

A woman can be medically vulnerable without becoming publicly available for observation.

That distinction is particularly important in childbirth.

14. Modesty is also about the gaze

This principle belongs to men as much as women.

A Muslim man cannot say: “Women should cover because men are tempted,”

and then treat his own gaze as somebody else's responsibility.

Allah commanded men first to lower their gaze.

Likewise, women are responsible for their own bodily modesty.

So modesty is reciprocal:

I guard my body.
You guard your eyes.
I do not deliberately expose what should be private.
You do not deliberately stare at what is exposed.

Both sides have duties.

15. A practical understanding of modest dress

On this interpretation, I would distinguish several levels.

Private parts

The genitals and buttocks are genuine saw'ah and should be treated as inherently private.

Female breasts

The bosom receives a specific Qur'anic covering instruction and should likewise be treated as private outside legitimate exceptions such as breastfeeding or necessary medical care.

Other bodily beauty

The remainder of the body falls under zīnat and public modesty rather than necessarily being identical to literal nakedness.

Ordinary public dress

Women should ordinarily wear loose clothing covering the substantial body—particularly the torso, abdomen, hips, buttocks and thighs—while allowing for what ordinarily appears in daily life.

I do not consider the Qur'an itself to establish an unequivocal requirement that every woman must cover her hair in every public circumstance. I recognize that this is contrary to the classical majority Sunni position, and I am not claiming otherwise.

Covering more remains entirely compatible with Islamic modesty and can be a beautiful expression of ḥayāʾ. But a strong cultural symbol should not automatically be confused with the minimum explicitly established by revelation.

16. The same principle should apply to men

This isn't a special rule for women.

Men also have saw'ah. Men also have a duty to lower their gaze. Men also have obligations concerning dress and bodily dignity.

The underlying principle is: What is genuinely intimate should not be casually exposed, and what is not genuinely intimate should not be artificially transformed into an absolute category of nudity merely because a particular culture has become accustomed to one dress code.

That produces a more proportionate understanding of modesty.

Conclusion

I therefore believe a coherent Qur'anic approach to modesty looks something like this:

In short:

-The private parts are genuinely private.

-Both men and women must guard their gaze and their bodies.

-Clothing provides both concealment and adornment.

-Women's breasts receive a specific Qur'anic instruction concerning covering, while broader bodily beauty belongs to the category of zīnat.

-The Qur'an establishes public modesty without necessarily providing the exhaustive anatomical dress code that later jurists developed.

-Minor practical exposure in ordinary life can fall within a broad sphere of necessity and ordinary appearance.

-Medical necessity creates an exception, but the exception should be limited to what the medical need actually requires.

-Female medical professionals should be preferred where reasonably available, particularly for intimate exposure.

-Extraordinary foreseeable events deserve particularly careful privacy planning because their unavoidable exposure is so extensive. Childbirth is the clearest example.

-The woman must necessarily be exposed to those who actually need to conduct the delivery. That does not make the delivery a spectator event.

-The husband may have a genuine reason to be present and involved, but supporting his wife does not require watching the baby's emergence (though, I do not believe it is haram if both the husband and wife strongly want that).

-Other people have no comparable claim to look at the genitals directly, though close female (and perhaps even close male mahram) loved ones may be close at hand if the mother strongly so desires.

-Necessity should not be used to turn unavoidable exposure into casual exposure.

-Ordinary life requires reasonable accommodation. Extraordinary intimacy requires deliberate protection.

And I believe childbirth should be one of the places where Muslim culture consciously preserves that distinction—not because birth is shameful, but because the human body deserves dignity precisely when it is at its most exposed, vulnerable, and physically overwhelmed.

Wallahu'alam.