It is unfortunate that the issue in this discussion has dwindled to the defense of Islam rather than condemning the brutality of the act of murder of Aqsa Parvez. Even those who so ardently defend Islam do concede that the act of strangulation of the 16-year kid was gruesome and uncalled for.

The fact is that hijab and jilbab do emanate from Quran (may not be exactly in its present form. See for example, 'Evidences for Jilbab,'

http://www.muhajabah.com/jilbab.htm)

but it doesn't need to be forcibly imposed when it can cause grievous harm.

Reinterpretation of Quran is allowed and the verses on hijab, more than anything else, need to be reinterpreted. This reinterpretation may neither be universal (applicable everywhere) nor uniform. For example, hijab may be suspended in some countries and
retained in Arab lands. Or hijab may be made voluntary; those who want to use it, they should. Others should not be compelled.

Islam had evolved to reform the social ill-practices of the pre-Islamic Arabia. For instance, it was a common practice in pre-Islamic Arabia to bury alive the newly born baby girls. Islam put a stop to this practice. Why now Islam should be made so rigid that
the kids like Aqsa Pervez have to lose their lives for the sake of outdated hijab.

Religion becomes impracticable and tends to become obsolete when it becomes permanently rigid and inflexible. Those who want to defend Islam should
recognize this fact.

Mohammad Gill