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

Islamic Reformation in Pakistan?

We are after all, children of the sun. Adam himself would not have existed if the sun did not shine its rays on Earth, thus triggering life creating processes, processes that created bacteria, which evolved into quadrupeds, then bipeds, the evolution culminating with the ‘creation of man’ ( Ashraful Makhluqat).

Now, I have just written a few lines and I am already guilty of heresy by accepting evolution. Now I must await the proclamation of my excommunication by the religious zealots of Pakistan. It is funny, that the fatwa in Pakistan is subject to how much you have to feed the Mullah to keep him quiet.

Less Money More Fatwa.

That is where we stand. We might call for revolution in politics but the real revolution in our character is still asleep, somewhere, in the middle of nowhere. People who choose to follow the tradition of Averroes (Ibn-e-Rushd) and Avicenna (Ibn-e- Sina) rather than the tradition of Taimur or Ghaznvi are a rarity in this country of ours. In fact, the rise of militant conservative Islam corresponds directly with the reformation of Europe and the rise of the Colonial Powers.

From the days of its inception, Islam more or less has had militant minded adherents. Not that it’s a bad thing (militancy is crucial to a religion or state’s ascendancy to power-Materialism 101) but our militancy has always led to our decline. Take the crusades for example. Though a military victory, it was a strategic disaster for the Muslims because all the knowledge flowed from the east to the dark and dingy universities of Europe where it was used to reform the religious beliefs and the society, thereby ushering medieval Europe in to the Golden Age, while the Muslims gloried themselves in swords and cannons. Militancy is not a problem of religion but a problem originating with its adherents.

It has been proven repeatedly that religion alone cannot bind people together, because every time it does, things like democracy, freedom of speech and human rights start to creep in, which subsequently leads to death and destruction.

I am not against religion, what I am against is, is the use of religion to exploit the masses. Whether sacrificing humans (war prisoners) in an Aztec Temple, bringing down the walls of Jericho by the ancient Jews, murder of hundreds of thousands of women on suspicion of being witches by the Christian ecclesia, or using suicide bombers to target people on the streets in the name of Allah, the most beneficent and the most merciful, religion has always been exploited.

The common people have always been exploited and led to ‘believe’ that their faith alone is the right one. Who to believe and who not to believe, that’s a question that ultimately rests in the hands of an individual but sadly for a Pakistani, this decision is taken away from his hands and placed in the hands of a chosen few who dictate our beliefs.

These elites in order to fool people, sometimes attempt to combine science and religion, therefore those scientific ideas that are compatible with the dominant religion are acceptable while those that question the religious tenets are deemed heretical. Thus using Quranic texts in our grade 9 and 10 science books to compensate for verifiable scientific facts is nothing short of funny. Averroes and Ibn-e- Sina would be laughing. It seems that the Quran today is used to explain everything except existing and declining social morals, which it was solely revealed for. Somehow, we turn a blind eye towards ayahs about honesty, dealings with neighbors and how to change ourselves.

It seems to me that the “Ummah” is one confused lot. And this confusion is visible in mass conversions from the Muslim faith in the Middle East and some other countries. Also, the oft-repeated statement that Islam is the fastest growing religion is true, not because of missionary success but our exploits on the bed. Thus in my opinion an Islamic reformation is overdue. Especially in Pakistan, this reformation is super overdue because no nation is as caught up in an identity crisis than ours. On one hand, we have a thoroughly secular Supreme Court of Pakistan and on the other hand is the Federal Sharia Court, which is thoroughly steeped in Islamic orthodoxy. The existence of two judicial systems in one country is indeed laughable if not downright nonsensical.

So why don’t we abandon this confusion and just follow the Quaid’s vision, which was to create a free secular society where everybody is free to go to his temple , mosque or whatever his or her place of worship is.

Image Credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg8tBBNE7_NLuawO-kY90qQsrCxk3IltpmMsiJCoondPAyrjZlCmi-i10V-tPY8CkJGClgiJ-DHQmuVgXnhaPnjynwVJ-cDM_8w0-NLOnG4qcW6rr03yqZMU4C-LWEfLajGpwFBRhQKuc/