Neither Can Live While the Other Survives

Brian Greene in his book, The Fabric of Cosmos, while explaining about the Principle of Equivalence to the layman, writes,

  “Right now you feel gravity’s influence. If you are standing, your feet feel the floor supporting your weight. If you are sitting, you feel the support somewhere else. And unless you are reading in a plane or a car, you probably also think that you are stationary-that you are not accelerating or even moving at all. But according to Einstein, you are actually accelerating. Since you’re sitting still this sounds a little silly, but don’t forget to the usual question: 

 Accelerating according to what benchmark? Accelerating from whose viewpoint? "

According to Einstein, absolute space provides a benchmark. Now you might wonder why I am boring you with some obscure physics principles, here’s the reason why.

The reason I mentioned this obscure and murky scientific principle was to draw a comparison to the human society. How do we judge a society’s moral values? What benchmark do we have to declare that such and such activity in a society is wrong or unjustified? Take the case of wine for example. In one culture (to be precise a religion) drinking wine is forbidden while in another wine is allowed. They both have their own benchmarks to judge their values against and both claim that they are right. But how does a person like me who is neither here nor there choose between the two? That is what I am stuck on. What absolute benchmark should I choose to define belief, my moral values, the way I live life. Or should I be my own boss.

 Religion is something that I believe should be avoided in creating a benchmark to judge anyone or anything? Why? Because there are a gazillion other religions out here and each professes that, it is right and divinely inspired. So many religions. So many followers, all vying for the coveted position of being close to the Lord. One claims that the Messiah hasn’t come yet, another says that the Messiah came , got crucified and caught a flight to Heaven and will come back soon to fight evil doers, while the last one basically says that the Messiah will come at the end of times but he would just be a subordinate of its own Prophet, who was the last in the long and illustrious line of Prophets.

 Every religion is contradicting each other that thus creates a need for an absolute benchmark, which can be used to judge and choose between right and wrong, and one that can be accepted by all. But here’s the catch. The human society does not work this way. There is no singular universally agreed guidebook that we earthlings have, that we can use for guidance and to distinguish between what right and what wrong. And the reason why they are not yet in existence is because of a small little code in our DNA.

Since man is nothing but the pinnacle of biological, evolution that has taken several billion years, it is thus a fact that we are the best version of a genetic program that has undergone an untold number of revisions , one particular code in this program pertains to survival. Humans didn’t build houses or discover fire for scientific or aesthetic purposes, they built and discovered for survival, i.e. survival of their species. It s a code that stretches back to the days when we were primitive bacteria swimming in earth’s primeval oceans.

 But this code actually has transcended mere body protection to the active defense of ideas and beliefs. These ideas and beliefs are the reason for a community’s survival and war is a tool of protection for its survival and continuation of its values. Different beliefs thus co-existing is a feel-good thought but one that is just a mirage. It is like the prophecy about Harry Potter and Voldemort which says “Neither can live while the other survives” why? Because the expansion of one belief system would come at the cost of contraction of another. And that’s where our survival code kicks in.

USA didn’t kick out Soviet communism because it was evil? It fought against it because the expansion of Soviet bloc would undermine the progress of USA and its capitalist allies.

A Nuclear Armageddon

 Even the religions are not immune to the effects of this evolutionary code. The concept of Armageddon, which is so widespread in the Abrahamic religions actually says that peace will only be created when all the earthlings are converted to one faith only . Just One Faith. There is no room in the scripture for diverse faiths. Yes, you can co-exist for a while but when the Messiah comes, you have no choice but to submit to his faith otherwise you are on the highway to hell.

 So try judging that against a benchmark!

There will be no benchmark to judge these actions unless one is actually decided unanimously by the earthlings, which leaves no room for dissent. And to leave no room for dissent means destroying the opposing ideas and belief. It’s a sinister aspect of life, but one with which we have to live with.

Because man is much more sexual in nature than women!

In Reply to Bina Shah (Nudity and the Niqab: The Debate Continues) __________________________________________________________________________ First, I would start by partially agreeing with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Moreover, I wish that (to quote you) "One day, women will be free to make their own choices about their clothing, and men will simply have to get out of the way." Nevertheless, here is a question that arises when I read your blog; should there be a limit to what a woman chooses to wear? Should the women -and for that matter men as well-be allowed to wear literally anything that they want to wear? Can I as a man be allowed to walk into my office wearing nothing but white boxer shorts and a top hat? Will the office management allow me to wear that? If it doesn't, then should I brand my office management as myopic rigid and conservative shmucks?

The reason behind all this controversy on the niqabs, burkas, hijabs and abayas is the misunderstanding of the original message words of Quran. Hijab in the Quran is used to denote a modest dress. A sort of separation between men and women, it was not implied in the Quran as the covering of the whole female body as we see it today. In fact the word Hijab was misunderstood by the Islamic jurisprudents to mean 'satr' which implies covering up yourself, which if used in the context of Hijab, actually bars women from going outside and remain locked up inside their homes which of course is impractical. The basic premise of Quran is to place restrictions on both men and women in regards to their conduct outside their homes. But an important factor to consider here is that the verses were revealed back in the 7th century and were primarily meant to guide the Muslims in those formative years. However, the views that would have been perfectly sane and rational in those times cannot be held as practical in this era, that much we have to give to the Muslim liberals. If revisit the Quranic verses that order the women to remain covered and hidden in their houses, we find the following: “O wives of the Prophet! You are not as other women..." (33:32) "Remain in your houses." (33:33) Here we see that the restrictions that were reserved for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) were taken by the jurisprudents to mean as general instructions for all the women. These instructions in those days were the ancient equivalent of modern security procedures regarding the family members of high-ranking officials and public figures, which of course can’t simply be applied to the public. What the Quran actually says is, "Say to the believing men to cast down their glance and guard their private parts..." (24:30), thus, it imposes a restriction on Muslim men and women regarding their conduct. And (to the chagrin of the liberals) these restrictions are neither fantastic nor impractical. In all the civilized western countries there laws against nudity as well as sexual offences. Society, thus itself imposes laws on what we wear and how we choose to act, something, which -to its credit-Islam outlined back in the 7th century AD. Yes, the concept of Hijab is there in Quran, but the Hijab that we refer today to as THE Hijab, is more related to the Arab culture, which we like to idealize in the same way as the medieval western nations idealized the Vatican and later the Renaissance gripped Europe idealized the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Thus, I leave it upon you to decide which culture you would like to follow and how much promiscuity would you be willing to allow in the society. I really do agree with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose to wear but restrictions should be there, why? Because man is much more sexual in nature than women -Ref: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare It is this sexual nature of man that if suppressed or given a free ticket lead to sexual crimes. I again repeat that the extreme, suppression (in the case of Arab and South Asian cultures) and liberalization (in the case of Western nations) will only bring sexual harm to the women. Thus, restrictions on what women and men wear will I am afraid always be there but it depends whether we gravitate towards extreme conservatism or extreme liberalization or should we choose the middle way-the moderate way, which is neither liberal nor conservative. Miss Bina Shah's said blog can be accessed at http://binashah.blogspot.nl/2012/07/nudity-and-niqab-debate-continues.html