The idea that all of woman is ‘awra postdates the Quran as later doctrine

Evidence

In four diff English translations of the Quran, when the term eaura occurs in conjunc; tion with won1en, it is translated as “nakedness” or “women’s private parts;” and when it occurs in conjunction with the term “houses,” it is translated as something that is “exposed” and therefore requires protection. … The term is used four times in the Quran, and the only place where eaura is used to refer to women’s genitalia (or private parts), it occurs in the plural Cau; rat), in verse 31 of Surat al;Nur. Hoffman;Ladd argues that the idea that all of woman is taura is not contained in the Quran, but only became hegemonic later in Islamic history, as the standards for women’s modesty grew more strict ( 1987, 46 n. 34 ). — Saba Mahmood, Politics of Piety, 756

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader theme in this book and Islamic studies scholarship that the veil/modesty norms intensified historically — parallels the veiling discussion in Lila Abu-Lughod.
• ADDENDUM: Directly parallels the ‘Complaints About Immodesty Go Way Back’ article — both trace moral modesty panics to later, stricter standards rather than original texts.
• QUESTION: What drove the historical tightening of modesty standards from Quranic usage to ‘all of woman is ‘awra’? Worth chasing the Hoffman-Ladd timeline.