What Shahrur Says
The testimony attributed to Shahrur states: “Saw’a does not necessarily mean the genitalia; rather, it may mean a bad deed or something one is ashamed to reveal.”
Atlas Explanation
What is established here is the rejection of exclusivity: according to this testimony, it is not valid to treat saw’a as a name for the genitalia in every instance. Nor does the phrase “may mean” establish absolute synonymy between saw’a and a bad deed; rather, it records a possible meaning given in the testimony.
Related Reading Paths
The related pages may be consulted to see how this discussion is used within the topic of clothing, but this testimony alone does not establish a legal or social conclusion: Hijab, as a concept of dress, does not conform to common conventions, and Women, Family, and Clothing.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The isolated testimony does not explain the criterion for preferring one meaning over another in each context, and it is not sufficient on its own to establish detailed conclusions regarding rules of dress. Moreover, the raw text surrounding the quotation is unavailable in the available evidence, so Toward New Principles for Islamic Jurisprudence should be consulted to verify its full context.
Muhammad Shahrur, Toward New Principles for Islamic Jurisprudence · Hijab, as a concept of dress, does not conform to common conventions