Talk:Aurat (word)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aurat (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

List of some references

• https://stellarhousepublishing.com/arab-word-for-nakedness-shame-also-means-woman/

• http://creative.sulekha.com/true-meaning-of-aurat-awrat-is_186597_blog Not sure if Wikipedia rules would permit to refer but would give good idea of the topic for beginners

• Sexuality in Muslim Contexts: Restrictions and Resistance ( Google books)

• Aadmi Ki Nigah Mein Aurat By Rajendra Yadav ( Google books)

Bookku (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Associated terms

Shareef Izzatdar Aurat, Bazaru Aurat

Bookku (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, Those can't be seen as inputs to the encyclopedic entry on the same. we need to have some scholarly material to produce encyclopedic entry or even some part of it. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts,

• I am still thinking about it, and don't have a good answer but would love to give some thoughts, probably then we can find something out.
• for me it's not a gender identity which can be easily isolated from the term women in general, and we can work on the lines of article Lady as that's the exact Victorian counter-part when we look at the debate on Aurat.
• So, yes article can have a same name, we can find more references from feminist movements across south east asia which actually talked about various facets of it. I will try and bring some references in a while. @Bookku: thanks for the ping QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and very nice of you for your proactive support. In coming weeks article will have a good shape. Thanks again.

Bookku (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What all we shall include in this article

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Though grammar and various facets of identity of Aurat are to be covered in this article, but purpose of article Aurat (English Wikipedia article) is just not limited to any single facet but whole gamut of association, experiences, perceptions, social and cultural construct of Asian women and people who identify and/or associate themselves with 'Aurat'. Including taking note of cultural, popular culture & literary references, contemporary and also accumulated over the centuries.

• Literary reviews of those women autobiographies who are identified or identify themselves as Aurat example

• Coverage of 'Aurat' through Essays, research, stories, novels, poetry other related literature.

• Coverage of 'Aurat' through fine arts like paintings to performing arts like dramas and movies

• Activism, Conservative and modernist feminist views.

• When articles related to different facets are their then why do we have an article ? Only looking at separated body parts does not give idea of Human being, only presenting human being is not enough but total associated experience need to be presented. And that what we are supposed to do in encyclopedic writings.

Bookku (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: & @Ipigott:

As predicted @ Talk:Aurat#Requested move 11 May 2020 edits like this one are but natural. I can't blame user like Staszek Lem because we selected a title so. Question is not which content he deleted. First Non-word related content will go, then Wikipedia is not dictionary so rest of the content will go.

That what I did not intend when I started article and made content support requests on so many Asian language Wikipedias too. When article for Woman exists simultaneously article for Lady too exists but some how English Wikipedia community wants to stifle existence of "Aurat" on English Wikipedia. I find myself helpless don't know whether there should be any future at all for this article. Whether we should send this article to draft namespace again or should I submit it for deletion itself.

Thanks anyways

Bookku (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are complaining about. The article does exist, right here. This is English-language wikipedia, there no such word in English, therefore the article title needs disambiguation. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

gamut of association, experiences, perceptions, social and cultural construct of Asian women and people who identify and/or associate themselves with 'Aurat'. Nobody will object to this. But you have to use reliable sources which discuss exactly what you wrote, not just use this word. And all statements from the article must be supported by cited sources. This is a fundamental rule of Wikipedia. Please also read and understand the policy WP:No original research, especially WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comments 1. The proposed opener "The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity." is unacceptable. The term "Asia" must not be appropriated to refer to "South Asia" alone. 2. In Southeast Asia (which is in Asia!), "Aurat" simply means Awrah. It is never used to refer to women. Go ahead and write about the above-mentioned gamut in a another article, but not by appropriating the terms "Asia" and "Aurat". –Austronesier (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks for your frank expression. And you seem to know linguistics better.

1) Asians including South Asians did not turn up -even to make objections- in previous discussion @ Talk:Aurat#Requested move 11 May 2020 despite similar requests across pages. Due to AFD at least few seem to take notice. Asian's own disinterest too contributes in systemic bias.

2)Some one else's stifling edit removed disambiguating hatnote template making mention about 'Intimate parts in Islam' This is how systemic bias enters unknowingly.

3) When 'Intimate parts in Islam' article already exists for 'awrah does same meaning of 'Aurat' used in south east asia would need another article? Is it not wise to allocate title for rest of Asia associating with Aurat as cultural women.

4) And what happens in south east Asia when woman's entire whole body is considered 'Aurat' (Then in that case is not whole body of south east Asian woman means whole women?) Do you need refs for some conservatives consider whole body as Aurat in south east Asia too?

5) If we reserve article for south Asians only where we will fit in Azerbaijani using word arvad etymologically from same family. And then what to do with historic usage as woman by Persians and ottoman Turkish?

6) @Staszek Lem: here it self another user asking to go some where else with gamut. He only relates with word and not the gamut. What do we do ? You also initially commented "...The article is about the word, not about (rest of XYZ).." The word "Word" in the title, automatically informs limited scope to the article every editor would not visit article talk page before deleting rest of gamut, isn't it? ( I don't know if at all you visited talk page before edits usually very few study talk page before any edit isn't it?)

Don't we need to find proper solution to article title that would allow the gamut part without putting editors in trouble.

What do you think, your inputs are welcome. Thanks

Bookku (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Profes.I.:, you have good expertise in middle eastern languages, I would be happy if to have your inputs in ongoing discussion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Gallery removal

Generally galleries are discouraged because they slow down page loading considerably, which makes it difficult to read in countries with slow internet or on portable devices. This is especially important for this subject.

Also this gallery is off-topic: it relates to women discrimination if Islam in general, not to this particular kind of discrimination. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Original research

With Islamic conceptual leanings believing in entire physical being and existence of a woman to be "Aurat" needs to be covered and restricted from stranger male gaze -- Starting from this sentence, the whole paragraph appears to go into long discusion of niqab, burqas and so on. The first sentence is unreferenced, and hence the whole subsequent long paragraph becomes dubious. What is more, much of its text is not directly supported by references. What is more, the subject of this paragraph closely overlaps with the text in Burqa and hence redundant. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the article text must be strictly limited to the sources which associate the words "aurat" and "awrah" and all social consequences of this, making a brief reference to what is written in "Burqa" and Hijab, possibly writing a separate article, something like Women outer garments in Islamic cultures. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Actually I waited to get article deletion discussion to get completed then if article remains then point in replying. But it's been relisted for more discussion. Don't know which way it will go. But it will not be fair on my part to delay answering you further.

1) Only thing in the sentence you mentioned, I did not breach copyright. When you are aware of concept of awrah and burqa, I don't how you assume references would not be existing and amounts to be original research, but Wikipedia culture expects to give refs once requested So 2 of sentences I am importing those from respective articles, and providing further referencing from my side too. And you search for Purdah seclusion you will get many more references to my statement.

From article Awrah: In the contemporary world, some Muslims insist that a woman's awrah in front of unrelated men is her entire body including her face and hands, which must be covered at all times in front of non-mahram men The practice of covering the face is common in several Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman. It is not common in other majority Muslim countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, present-day Iran, present-day Turkey and majority of south Asia. These differences reflect different interpretations and understanding of Sharia regarding wearing a niqab.

From article Burqa certain Quranic verses have been used in exegetical discussions of face veiling. Coming after a verse which instructs men to lower their gaze and guard their modesty, verse 24:31 instructs women to do the same, providing additional detail:

Now this is from malaysian research paper Islam or progress of the nation?: An assessment of the aurat issue in Malay newspapers and magazines in the 1930s: Islamic jurisprudence books provide various reports on Muslim jurists’ views on this matter. Although the majority of the scholars from the Shafi’e school of jurisprudence noted that a woman’s hands and face were allowed to be exposed to non-mahram men, al-Shawkani reported that some of the Shafi’ites opined that a woman must cover her entire body, including her hands and face (al-Shawkani, 1993: 55). According to Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and his followers, all parts of the woman’s body were awrah and must be covered without exceptions. He asserted that the most attractive parts of women’s bodies, capable of enticing men, were their faces and hands (Ibn Rushd, 2002: 110)

2) ...I think the article text must be strictly limited to the sources which associate the words "aurat" and "awrah" .. This unfair restrictive expectation is getting supported because there is 'word' (word) in the title. If article is allowed to use own general title Aurat as woman this expectation will not come up in restrictive manner. For example this article in Dawn What when a woman dies? talks about denial of existence/individual identity by not pronouncing woman's name even in death. Now if you don't get word 'Aurat' in the Dawn article in spite it is talking of the same culture and you deny using of source can be unfair and problematic. Even in Afaghan culture a stranger even can not pronounce other women's name (and you will get ref for this). In south Asia till last century women had to walk behind husband, I came across reference of the practice in Turkish sources.

This is all part of evolutionary process of social impact "Aurat" had at least till previous generation and still struggling in some aspects , if one starts putting undue restrictions on encyclopedic writing it gets scattered and can't be brought together.

Here is example from wikiquote talk page, quote talks about 'child marriage in Islam' since for some feel awkward to have such quote so find reason that words 'women in Islam' does not exist in the quote, though the quote is all about talks about unfair social impact of child marriage on muslim women.

Now another quote from Islamic feminist is about gender justice but does not consist words 'women in Islam' so should the quote be expelled on mere technicality?

3) Again and again question will keep coming when practices of seclusion of women have been covered in other articles then why repeat in this article too,

This article -if allowed to exist- will cover (along with other cultural aspects) evolution in Asia of practices of seclusion of 'Aurat' and put them all together with a social impact including that on non Muslim women.

Bookku (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Women are not called 'autrat' in the whole islamic Asia. Therefore please think of a reasonable title where you will write what you want about practice of seclusion and covering of women in islamic culture. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Word "Aurat" for women didn't drop from sky as God's verse is South Asia. Persian and Turkish aristocracy was using it, and not for lesser covered women but fully covered women of commoners too.-the aristocratic privileged attitudes! and those medieval time records and refs available. Substantial medieval aristocracy of South Asia was originated from Persian and Turkish aristocracy and term for commoner women came with them and got internalized with various other social impacts.-Turkish rule was having long lasting impact on Asian culture that included women-

Like not-fully-veiled women were considered non-free hence available for even non consensual ***. While south Asian aristocracy might have had some sort of veiling of aristocratic women but not-fully-veiled women were considered non-free hence available for even non consensual *** was some thing new to South Asia that common women had to fall in line of seclusionary norms. But it is not seclusionary norms only but whole social lifestyle and thought process and culture was getting affected. It will take it's own time for all those refs coming out because many of them are in vernacular languages even not known to many in new Asian and south Asian generations. Girls at Dhabas like movements are struggling in south Asia. Has all this background. Just writing a new article of a movement does not suffice. It needs to be put in historic cultural and other associate context. And those context can come to light with article Aurat.

And the article deserves title Aurat itself. If it gets own title one will not need to search new restrictive awkward words to put in bracket IMHO. Thanks for frank healthy discussion on the topic.

Bookku (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Removal of Indonesian and Malay mentions

@Austronesier:

I am giving in to popular demand and decided to split article. Also took care of your main concern and removed Indonesian and Malay mentions as part of confidence building process, personally I felt inclusion of those mentions were helpful for global view, but let your wish prevail.

Bookku (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

An art exhibition of 11 women artists named "Pakistani Aurat Kay Naam" was held in Nomad Art Gallery, on Pakistan's national women's day 12 February 2011.

References

Draft:Awrat (word)

informal discussion i.e. 1'st round

Please do discuss which word spelling is better for this article of historical linguistics: Aurat, Awrath, Avrat, Avret, Afrat, any other cognate suggestion? The one I suggest is Draft:Awrat (word)

As of now requesting opinions from native language speakers and linguistic experts as first informal round of discussion to move article from Draft:Aurat (word) to Draft:Awrat (word). (Formal move discussion will be done in second round with participation from users of all background before making final move if at all)

Draft:Awrat (word) likely to have lesser conflict of differing geographical perceptions and article will work as central point (main linguistics side article) for etymological sections of both articles : 'awrah (i.e.Intimate parts in Islam) and Draft:Aurat representing women ones.

• For those who knew previous discussions Draft:Aurat (word) has been split forking out cultural women only info to Draft:Aurat as some users were suggesting split.

Bookku (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Medieval era Persian use

@Mehrshad Mehdi pour: Hi, greetings,

You have deleted sentence. "....Sometimes, it is also used in Persian language while referring to a "woman"...."

Two points "Mohammad Moin's Persian Dictionary seems to make mention of that. Secondly Ottoman Turkish too was largely dependent on Arabic and Persian. Indian Urdu languages is largely influenced by 'Medieval era Persian language' some centuries ago. So usage of 'awrat' - Aurat most likely have been used in Medieval era Persian some centuries ago. This article is about historical linguistics too, so pl. see if you or some one from Persian Wikipedia can help out about medieval era Persian usage of the word about historic usage in Persian with references .

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again First about your first point: as I said in my last message, In Moin's dictionary There are some Arabic words are used in some parts of Iran (such as Kurdistan and Baloochestan) and also there are some words that they are not as useful as they're synonyms. About your second point I should say that you are right; Ottomani Turkish had lots of Persian and Arabic word. But same as you said, aurat is an Arabic word. Maybe it was added from Arabic. And again this right Iranians used the word aurat in the medieval era; but parts of medieval era and even some parts of new times. Medieval era empires that maybe used word aurat: Umayyids and Abbasids khalifates I have some proof for this that this word wasn't used between Iranians after this and tgat refers to Ferdowsi qoutes. I hope you succes. Mehrshad Mehdi pour (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mehrshad Mehdi pour: Thanks for informative reply. So we agree word 'Aurat' is not used in modern Persian but probably used in earlier Persian as part of Arabic influence.

A book is available on google books 'Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era edited by Madeline C. Zilf'. Word 'Aurat' for young women was not in use of common Turkish people but was in use of Ottoman Court for common women. So it is quite likely that aristocrat and ruling class used word 'Aurat' for commoner women. And some of the Persian and Turkish aristocrat (Commanders/Sardars) and and ruling class used to find work in courts of Indian medieval era empire. Before Urdu It was Turkish then Farsi were court languages of medieval Indian empires and their communications with army of common people developed in to Urdu and Urdu adopted the word 'Aurat' it to mean woman. That's how it might have entered in South Asia.

Word 'Aurat' reached South East Asia after 8th or 13th century and means only 'awrah and not woman, and meaning as woman does not seem to be widespread use in Arabic. So it's unlikely to have reached south Asia directly to mean 'Woman'.

Same time use of 'Aurat' to mean as woman is in wide distance from Azerbaijan to South Asia but common Turkish people and common Persian people used it very less. So it seems most likely ruling class of Turkish or Persian origin (nobility/Sardars/commanders) used word 'Aurat' for common women while communicating with soldiers and that is how likely entered in common vocabulary at distant places like Azebaijan and South Asia. While this seems evident unless we get references for such usage by nobility/Sardars/commanders to soldiers we can not use it in the article.

Please see if you can support by putting up a message in Perian Wikipedia and we can get any references of in court usage as you said in times of Umayyids and Abbasids khalifates or Persian or Turkish (nobility/Sardars/commanders) using word Aurat to mean women while communicating among themselves and with soldiers.

Thanks again for information and best wishes.

Bookku (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please re draftily again

@PamD:

Please, can you re draftily again and request to protect move since already we have had more than enough drama on the subject which new users do not know and they bring in articles in main space prematurely

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: Probably you are unaware of all the previous discussion relating to the article Draft:Aurat (word), it is better let the article get completed first then only we will bring it to article namespace. If you find the article draft interesting, Please do join in expansion of the article as of now. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

South Asian Examples

• Traditional euphemism
  • Aurat Ki Maryada
  • Bazaru / Behaya / Begairat/ Khabees/buri?manhoos Aurat

• Neologism in Urdu

• • Auratgardi ← Awara gardi
  • Auratnaak ← Khatarnaak
  • Aurat Card

• Source platform issue
  • Sultana, Yasmeen; Saeed, Naima; Rehman, Tansif Ur (2020). "Gender Representation in SMS Jokes". Gender and Diversity Representation in Mass Media. Retrieved 6 October 2021

Bookku (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Not a WP article

Word definitions belong in Wiktionary, not here. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 11:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been six months. @Bookku: Can you address this?

This entire article is just the discussion of a word and its meanings in various languages. The place for such articles is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. This is not an encyclopaedia entry, it is a dictionary entry. Encyclopaedias and dictionaries are not the same thing. This article should be deleted from here and moved to Wiktionary. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 07:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Missed source

https://www.socialsciencejournals.pjgs-ws.com/index.php/PJGS/article/view/129 this source was added during editing and removed by me as I was unable to work with it. But someone might want to use it again. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)