Evolution ... It is nature's disposition to always go forward, and hence evolved. Such evolution need not neccessarily be physical, but emotional and intellectual as well. For as long as we do not evolve, we will never really reach our Destiny.I have been teaching The Evolution of Jurisprudence over the last 10 weeks and tonight was the concluding lecture. Whilst teaching, I was inspired by a question which I posed to my students - and left them speechless. The question will be posed at the end of this entry, but meanwhile, the context ...
We have always pride ourselves as being way far more advanced and civilised a society than our predecessor(s) have ever been. But what exactly is it that validate our claims therein? Is it our intellectual prowess? Yet, we still cannot build marvels such as the pyramids. Is it our cultural and/or our moral development? Yet, we still have yet to create something really unique and original on our stage. The list goes on ...
But, what I have observed is this, and let us just take one example - clothing: the first people on Earth were running around almost naked - and they found ways to protect their modesty. As civilization developed, we wore more and more to cover our nakedness as we deemed that to be "civilised".
Then, a freak of nature occurred. As we became more developed as a society, we tend to wear less and less and then, almost nothing. Just take a walk in town one of these days (particularly in this scorching heat this time of the year) - you will see people practically wearing just their brassiere and skimpy jeans/shorts and parading around. Or for the guys, a see-through singlet that leaves nothing much to the imagination. For either sexes, it makes me wonder what must be going through their minds when they wake up every morning and watch themselves naked: they must have been so proud of what they saw. But I may have missed the point ... Someone please tell me!
Anyway, coming back: the more we are "developed", the less we wear? Can you imagine if at this same time, you meet the very same people of the stone age and he/she saw you dressed as you were. Guess who will be embarrassed and faint first?
Use this example and extend the logic to other subjects: for example our moral values - noticed how homosexuality/lesbianism used to be a crime and then slipped down the scale to just be something you do in the privacy of your own room to getting legally married and adopting children [God help those children - I'd rather Angelina Jolie adopts them]? Hey, you can even be a man of god!
I am not being judgmental of either - but you see my point.
Coming back to my lecture: Muslims belong to various mazhab for various reasons. Now, the question is:
"Since the world has gotten "smaller" or "flat" since the existence of the Maliki, Hanafi, Syafie or Hambali mazhabs (and there are more than these dominant 4) where your world in the East can "co-exist" with the world in the West at the click of a button - how relevant will the jurisprudential school of thoughts (mazhabs) be in, say 100 years from now?"
With all these fightings that we have amongst Muslims that kept us apart over these very mundane issues, this question is worthy of some serious examination.
What are we fighting for?!?!
5 comments:
Well, you are talking about evolution of the human species but adaptation comes hand in hand with evolution. Humans evolved so as to adapt to differing conditions etc.
About people wearing less and less now, there are many issues which leads to it being a socially acceptable practice. As I said, adaptation. Maybe the weather's getting warmer? Vanity?
Women now want to look "sexy", whatever their definition of that is. Revealing more skin is simply an action designed to attract the roving eyes of the opposite sex. When the girls notice men ogling at their skimpy outfits, they get a sense of satisfaction for having grabbed a moment of attention. So, adaptation. Women now are adapted to the fact that majority of men can't help looking at sexy girls, and they dress accordingly to make them feel good about themselves.
The media in general is an open sex book, which openly utilises sex as a marketing tool. Nobody can deny that. The younger males in our generation now do not discuss about how demure, sweet, gentle, motherly and reliable their female counterparts are. Instead they would use the words "hot", "jambu", "badan baik" etc to describe girls. This is what our society has become of late.
Men make it known that they "appreciate" women who dress scantily. Women are just responding. You can't put the blame entirely on them. Everyone has a choice to make. Not everyone makes the right one.
---kaypoh---
Thank you for your interesting entry. Would you think that such adaptation justifies our current state? If so, would there be some framework which this would be more 'workable'?
I wouldn't say it justifies our current state but at least it offers an explanation as to why things are turning out as such.
You mentioned homosexuality. In certain American states, they do allow same-sex marriages. Why? Does legalizing it makes it justifiable?
---kaypoh---
Another interesting entry. Your very questions serves as an answer to our mutual questions :-)
Another interesting entry. Your very questions serves as an answer to our mutual questions :-)
Post a Comment