University which studies and teaches religion

january SG

I cannot believe that there are universities that read their religious books in depth, become scholars and interpret the words of god.

Then they set up the moral and legal guidelines from these interpretation which changes sometimes because as you know, these books content are narratives types.

These moral and legal groups set the rules, and within their power of control, ensures people abide to them. They then discuss, argue over differences and the cycle of reinterpretation and quarrels continue.

Its never ending confusion because they should not have believe in god in the first place, which is to them, always assumed to be rela and true.

Oh my god, how i wish i was not born in this outdated century with all these illogical and unproductive things people are doing.

january SG

source:bbc website

Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

january SG

it seems that religious countries are reforming their religious beliefs gotten from books to cater to modern times and maybe for economic growth and to suit people needs.

but the problem is that they need to use books and its content and interpret those words and encode them into guidelines.

Its seems that human is incapable to create his own moral code by himself, for himself and with others together. They rather use a book as a source, which i think is, inefficient way of living for humans.

january SG

an example of time wasting arguments becos people choose to study the book and use it in the first place.

Male modesty has been interpreted to be covering the area from the navel to the knee - and for women it is generally seen as covering everything except their face, hands and feet when in the presence of men they are not related or married to.

However, there has been much debate among Islamic scholars as to whether this goes far enough.

This has led to a distinction between the hijab (literally "covering up" in Arabic) and the niqab (meaning "full veil").

Hijab is a common sight among Muslim women, a scarf that covers their hair and neck.

Niqab consists of covering up completely, including gloves and a veil for the face - leaving just a slit for the eyes, or covering them too with transparent material.

This form of dress is rarer, although it has been growing in recent years, and it is this which former UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says he objects to at face-to-face meetings with his constituents.

Muslim scholars have debated whether it is obligatory to don the niqab, or whether it is just recommended without being obligatory.

There have also been more liberal interpretations which say the headscarf is unnecessary, as long as women maintain the sartorial modesty stipulated in the Koran.

Scholarly dispute

The holy text addresses "the faithful women" who are told to shield their private parts and not to display their adornment "except what is apparent of it".

Scholarly disputes revolve around what this last phrase means.

Does it refer to the outer surface of a woman's garments, necessitating that she cover every part of her body - ie don the full niqab?

Or does it give an exemption referring to the face and the hands, as well as conventional female ornaments such as kohl, rings, bracelets and make-up?

The latter interpretation has been adopted by some of the most prominent scholars from Islamic history, such as Abu Jafar al-Tabari, who favour the hijab option.

There are additional Koranic instructions - seen as ambiguous and therefore much debated - for women to draw the "khimar" (or scarf) to cover the "jayb" (or bosom/upper chest), and for "the wives and daughters of the Prophet and the women of the believers to draw their "jalabib" (or cloaks) close round them".

Religious and cultural traditions vary across the Muslim world, stretching from Indonesia to Morocco.

But it may also be left to the Muslim woman to decide for herself, whether she wants to cover up fully with the niqab, as an expression of her faith and Islamic identity, or not.

In countries such as France and Turkey, where there are legal curbs on religious dress, it becomes a matter of women's human rights to wear what they want.

But at the same time the niqab is such a powerful statement that more liberal Muslims sometimes can be heard objecting to it, especially in more developed societies, where women have fought long and hard to shake off restrictions seen as outdated and imposed by men.

frederikan SG

hey, at least that can't be compared to this ad...