Liberalism is not a bad thing, rather it's a great way of thinking and a great approach to solve problems. Islam itself was a very liberal ideology during it's formation. It's a historical lesson to mankind that liberal forces have always prevailed over conservatives and traditionalists . For example one of the main arguments against holy prophet (SAW) was why should we leave our ancestral religion and traditions and follow you, and yet they lost and prophet (SAW) prevailed . The great thing about Islam is it's a very liberal and natural religion, and it remains one of its major strengths even in today's world . But yet somethings in Islamic order do contradict with contemporary liberalism. It's yet to be proven who would prevail .

BTW there is very scarce information about social structure of pre Islamic arabia. However there is no doubt that it was predominantly patriarchal. Now this doesn't mean that in a patriarchal order all women are necessarily suppressed and barred from public life, bibi khadija was a businesswoman . Hind, wife of abu sufyan, was politically active. Nevertheless it was a culture where men were viewed as superior to women, to an extent that female infanticide was also practiced. As about women warriors, Khawlah bint al-Azwar was a famous Muslim warrior who fought in many battles along side her brother under the command of Khalid bin Walid, this doesn't make Muslims became matriarchal after prophet (SAW) in any sense .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

ISLAMABAD: Malala Yousafzai’s recently launched book “I Am Malala” has a lot to make this teenager extremely controversial besides providing her critics something “concrete” to prove her as an “agent” of the West against Islam and Pakistan.

The book, which is more reflective of Malala’s father’s experiences and thoughts than her own, softly talks of the most hatred blasphemer Salman Rushdi and his sacrilegious book The Satanic Verses.As has been the view of the West in general, she writes: “My father also saw the book as offensive to Islam but believes strongly in freedom of speech.”

“Is Islam such a weak religion that it cannot tolerate a book written against it? Not my Islam,” she quoted her father as saying and shifted all the blame on what she called a “mullah close to our intelligence services” to have ignited the feeling of the people of Pakistan to protest.

Like any western authors, Malala in her books refers to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on many occasions but did not use what is considered mandatory for every Muslims to say/write either Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH) or Sallallu Alaihi Wasallam (SAW).

She even reflected negatively on Islamic laws. She writes: “But General Zia brought in Islamic Laws which reduced woman’s evidence in court to count for only half that of a man’s.” She also found the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan as “stricter”.

“In Pakistan we have something called the Blashphemy Law, which protects the Holy Quran from desecration. Under General Zia’s Islamisation campaign, the law was made much stricter so that anyone who ‘defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet’ can be punished by death or life imprisonment,” her book reads.

As against her abhorrence for General Ziaul Haq and his Islamisation, she was positive for General Musharraf and his policy of enlightened moderation. On page 78 and 79 of her book, she says: “In some ways Musharraf was very different from General Zia. Though he usually dressed in uniform, he occasionally wore western suits and he

called himself chief executive instead of chief martial law administrator. He also kept dogs, which we Muslims regard as unclean. Instead of Zia’s Islamisation he began what he called “enlightened moderation’. He opened up our media, allowed new private channels and female newsreaders, as well as showing dancing on television. The celebration of Western holidays such as Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Eve was allowed. He even sanctioned an annual pop concert on the eve of Independence Day, which was broadcast to the nation. He did something which our democratic rulers hadn’t, even Benazir, and abolished the law that for woman to prove she was raped, she had to produce four male witnesses…….”

While referring to Ziaul Haq and the Islamic Laws, she wrote on page 24, “But General Zia brought in Islamic Laws which reduced a woman’s evidence in court to count for only half that of a man’s. Soon our prisons were full of cases like that of a thirteen-year-old-girl who was raped and became pregnant and was then sent to prison for adultery because she couldn’t produce four male witnesses to prove it was a crime. A woman couldn’t even open a bank account without a man’s permission.”

Registering her subtle protest to Zia’s policy of preventing sportswomen from wearing shorts, she said, “As a nation we have always been good at hockey, but Zia made out female hockey players wear baggy trousers instead of shorts, and stopped women playing some sports altogether.”

She also said during Zia’s regime many madrasahs were opened. She added, “In all schools religious studies, which we call deeniyat, was replaced by Islamiyat, or Islamic studies, which children in Pakistan still have to do today.”

Then she talked about the Pakistan’s history and wrote (page 24), “Our textbook were rewritten to describe Pakistan as a ‘fortress of Islam’,which made it seem as it we has existed far longer than since 1947, and denounced Hindus and Jews.”

Then she continued on page 25 to adjudge, “Anyone reading them (the rewritten textbooks of Zia’s era) might think we won the three wars we have fought and lost against our great enemy India.”

About Salman Rushdie and his highly blasphemous book, she wrote (page 36-37), “It (The Satanic Verses) was a parody of the Prophet’s life set in Bombay. Muslims widely considered it blasphemous and it provoked so much outrage that it seemed people were talking of little else. The odd thing was no one had even noticed the publication of the book to start with- it wasn’t actually on sale in Pakistan- but then a series of articles appeared in Urdu newspapers by a mullah close to our intelligence service, berating the book as offensive to the Prophet and saying it was the duty of good Muslims to protest. Soon mullahs all over Pakistan were denouncing the book, calling for it to be banned, and angry demonstrations were held. The most violence took place in Islamabad on 12 February 1989, when American flags were set a

light in front of the American Centre- even through Rushdie and his publishers were British. Police fired into the crowd, and five people were killed. The anger wasn’t just in Pakistan. Two days later Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran, issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s assassination.”

She added, “My father’s college held a heated debate in a packed room. Many students argued that the book should be banned and burnt and the fatwa be upheld. My father also saw the book as offensive to Islam but believes strongly in freedom of speech. ‘First, let’s read the book and then why not respond with our own book,’ he suggested. He ended by asking in a thundering voice my grandfather would have been proud of:

‘Is Islam such a weak religion that it cannot tolerate a book written against it? Not my Islam!”About Zia’s policy of supporting Afghan Jehad, she wrote, “It was as if under Zia jihad had become the sixth pillar of our religion on top of the five we grow up to learn……… My father says that in our part of the world this idea of jihad was very much encouraged by the CIA.”

On page 45 of her book, she wrote, “On Pakistan’s fiftieth anniversary on 14 August 1997, there were parades and commemorations throughout the country. However, my father and his friends said there was nothing to celebrate as Swat had only suffered since it had merged with Pakistan. They wore black armbands to protest, saying the celebrationswere for nothing, and were arrested.”

In her book she generally used the term Mullah for religious scholars and religious leaders. On page 55 she referred to Mullah Omar as “a one-eyed mullah” whom she cited in her book for “burning girls’ schools”. She added that the one-eyed mullah forced men to grow beards and coerced women to wear burqa about which Malala wrote, “Wearing a burqa is like walking inside beige fabric shuttlecock with only a grille to see through and on hot days it’s like an oven. At least I didn’t have to wear one.”

She said that Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a shia and remembered Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the past alliance of religious political parties, negatively. Referring to the 2002 elections, she said, “In our province these elections brought what we called a ‘mullah government’ to power.” She also talked of peoplejokingly referred to the MMA as the Mullah Military Alliance.Talking about the creation of a number of madrasas during Afghan Jihad in Pakistan, she said that most of them were Saudi funded and as per her father that was the start of the “Arabisation” of Pakistan.

On the Lal Masjid issue, she wrote on page 105, “Around the same time as our Taliban were emerging in Swat, the girls of the Red Mosque madrasa began terrorising the streets of Islamabad. They raided houses they claimed were being used as massage centres, they kidnapped women they said were prostitutes and closed down DVD shops, against making bonfires of CDs and DVDs. When it suits the Taliban, women can be vocal and visible…”

About May 2 incident and Osama bin Laden, she on one point on page 176 said, “We couldn’t believe the army had been oblivious to bin Laden’s whereabouts.” She added on page 177, “My father said it was a shameful day. ‘How could a notorious terrorist be hiding in Pakistan and remain undetected for so many years?’ he asked. Others were asking the same thing.”

She further explained, “You could see why anyone would think our intelligence service must have known bin Laden’s location. ISI is a huge organisation with agents everywhere. How could he have lived so close to the capital- just sixty miles away? And fo so long! May be the best place to hide is in plain sight, but he had been living in that house since the 2005 earthquake. Two of his children were even born in the Abbottabad hospital. And he’d been in Pakistan for more than nine years…….”

There are two probabilities in this case either matriarchal or patriarchal. Nicholson,Hitti are famous "Mustashriqeen" of Islam and no doubt Nicholson being the great one with his works on Rumi,Iqbal and Ibn-e-Arby..All have pointed out that it was a deteriorating matriarch. Mazhar-ul-Haq however just a copyist too have mentioned it...
The biggest cause behind Female Infanticide was the same. Arabs had not a profound control over their women. Because women usually had more then one relationships making them stronger daughters against fathers, wives against husbands. Because a Women gets weak only when she start thinking that on keeping her foot outside from home, no body is going to accept her sincerely. So,whatsoever her status is at home, at least her "honour" is secure in the hands of father and brothers. When she knows that there is some one who will accept her, she gets bold.
Pre-Islamic Arab women had a custom of more then one sincere "Acquaintances", so they usually were seen quite bold there, and an other aspect is that an Arab woman is quite hardy as compared to other regions of the world...Even Female prophetess Sajjah arose and she was much powerful, clearly indicating that Men were even accepting to female spirituality and prophet-ism. Even in this era you can't imagine men gathering around woman for taking "Bayt"..
In Islamic era there were still some shreds of matriarch were remaining and they disappeared completely in the Umayyad rule where again "Patriarch" was at it's peak, until now. Every Caliph had his own "Harem" except a few (very few)..
Well, Matriarch or Patriarch, it seldom effects when the whole attitude of the Nation is detrimental to progress.

__________________
If I am what I have and if I lose what I have, who then am I?

@ Ansar Abbassi Truth Exposed
Ansar Abbassi in one of his program on this issue with Hamid Mir said "Religion is the personal matter" when Hamid Mir asked him "Malala offers 5 times prayer a day and reads Quran daily?"...If this matter is "Personal" then all the above matters are "Personal" as well...
This statement of Abbassi shows his utter confusion in this matter.
So, his any further statement will be deemed as "Unreliable"...

__________________
If I am what I have and if I lose what I have, who then am I?

I agree to you Island. . .
Actually, as I am new to this forum and I was very glad to read all the posts about discussion on Malala. . . It gave me much informative and fruitful idea. But unfortunately few of the last posts are very hurting. . . Things should never be taken so personal like this.
If pathans are bad in one way they may be very good in the other and vice versa with Punjabis and other Pakistanis. All their goods or bads are not due to their ethnicity or language they speak. We should discuss issues rather than ethnicity and personal blessedness. Criticizing ethnic groups is very condemnable.

Hope all the members will focus knowledgeable and informative discussion.

Regards.

One can always find stories in international media about "Mukhtaran Mai" or "Malala Yousafzai" or awards for stories that defame Pakistani society (and other countries like Pakistan). But can not find a single international award for humanitarian organizations, people like Eidhi, those working in earth quakes, floods and/or educating and supporting orphans.

__________________
Success is simple. Do what's right, the right way, at the right time.

haha i agree..yes wahan pa tu b indian and israeli ban jana..u may show ur true colrs after being selected

no doubt Malala Yousafzayi did great job by winning award for peace.....but we should not forget what is the ultimate result of this....

What?