Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Religion on March 3rd, 2010
Muslim woman Hani Khan alleges Abercrombie fired her for wearing headscarf
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Religion on February 3rd, 2010
1 Feb 2010
It was reported in The Nation Newspaper (Jan 30th) that Swiss politician Daniel Streich embrassed Islam while in an effort to disprove it.
RENOWNED Swiss politician Daniel Streich, who rose to fame for his campaign against minarets of mosques, has embraced Islam. A member of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) and a well-known politician, Daniel Streich was the first man who had launched a drive for imposition of ban on mosques minarets, and to lock the mosques in Switzerland. The proclamation of Streich’s conversion to Islam has created furore in Swiss politics, besides causing a tremor for those who supported ban on construction of mosques minarets. Streich propagated his anti-Islamic movement far and wide in the country, sowed seeds of indignation and scorn for Islam among the people, and paved way for public opinion against pulpits and minarets of mosques. But now Streich has become a soldier of Islam. His anti-Islam thoughts finally brought him so close to this religion that he embraced Islam. He is ashamed of his doings now and desires to construct the most beautiful mosque of Europe in Switzerland.
A similar incident occurred when Shive Prasad accepted Islam on Dec. 4, 1998, after destroying the minarete of Babri Masjid in 1992. USIslam.org reports: Among the fears of lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of Kar Sevak who had gathered to demolish the Babri Masjid , few furiously climbed on the majestic minaret of the mosque. The most important among the few were Shive Sainik. A resident of Faisabad, where Ayodhya is situated, Shive Prasad was the captain of Bajrang Dal. He was given the responsibility to guide four thousand Kar Sevak in the demolition of mosque. It was he who gave training to four thousands of people under him, on how to carry the demolition. On seeing the majestic minarets of the mosque come down Captain Prasad was overjoyed and shouted the “Ram! Ram!” This happened seven years ago. On Dec. 6, 1999 the same Shive Prasad was seeking forgiveness from Allah for his cruel act seven years back. This 6 Dec,1999 he was fasting (non-obligatory) and regretting for the act with tears and was seeking forgiveness from Allah in his prayers. Shive Prasad embraced Islam, Indeed. He has changed his name to Mohammed Mustafa.
It would be interesting for the non-Muslims to learn that whats the reason behind such conversions … I think the truth always becomes visible only if one is not blind enough to ignore it, perhaps the very effort to counter a fact only proves it otherwise, if it is really true. Therefore I would advice all non-Muslims that please make a sincere effort to prove Quran and Philosophy of Islam wrong, and if you are really honest, then it would help you discover the truth.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Religion on January 16th, 2010
Friday, 15 January 2010 The first brick of Hindu-Muslim antagonism was laid when Muhammad Bin Qasim raised the banner of Islam in Sindh in 712 AD and tens of thousands of lower caste Hindus and Buddhists suffering under the tyrannical yoke of Raja Dahir embraced Islam. Throughout 1000 years rule of India by the Muslims, Hindu cultural values and religious sentiments were respected and preserved. Benevolence of Muslim rulers of India and their patronage to high caste Hindus resulted in failure to assimilate Hinduism into fold of Islam. This can be gauged from the fact that at the time of partition of India, Muslim strength in the Indian subcontinent was mere 22%.
Hindus never reconciled to any meaningful integration with generous Muslim culture. Behind apparent public cordiality, there was deep-seated antagonism in private. Muslims were always looked down upon as defiled and polluted and treated as intruders. Hinduism reluctantly submitted to Muslim rule, but all the time it strived to weaken Islamic society by corroding it from within.
When the British captured power in India, Hindus became natural allies of the British and both went all out to destroy social, educational, cultural and religious heritage of Muslims. Hindus deep-rooted hatred got accentuated when the Muslims opted for a separate homeland.
Notwithstanding the aspirations of the Muslims of India, the idea of a separate Muslim state was repugnant to Indian Congress and hence unacceptable to them. This led to a bitter and prolonged quarrel between the two communities. While it was a question of survival for the Muslims, for Hindus it was the matter of preventing vivisection of so-called Mahabharata.
Despite many hurdles created by Hindu leaders, upsurge for gaining independence was too great and beyond human control. In spite of MA Jinnah’s loud protestations, provinces of Bengal and Punjab were deliberately partitioned while Kashmir was allowed to accede to India to make him change his mind. These callous acts failed to deter him but sowed seeds of permanent discord between Pakistan and India. When the Kashmiris rose up in revolt, over two-third of Kashmir was forcibly annexed by Indian forces.
Failing to reconcile to the existence of Pakistan and cherishing the fond hope of its re-absorption into Indian dominion, Indian leaders worked hard for the dismemberment of Pakistan soon after its inception. Many Indians regarded the creation of Pakistan as a tragic mistake that could still be corrected. Break up of Pakistan and its absorption within the fold of Indian Union had become the national goal of Congress leaders. To consolidate the Indian dominion, by March 1949, India had absorbed 538 princely states out of a total of 565. India’s insatiable greed to gorge as many states and her menacing attitude towards Pakistan made the latter wary and worried.
Pakistan’s geographical frontiers had yet to be determined. It was without a seat of government or an administrative structure to enable it to exercise its’ sovereignty. It was without a constitution; its’ armed forces were scattered; civil servants and other administrative and technical hands were in the midst of migrating from India; its political and economic system was completely disrupted and the communication system had broken down.
As if these settling problems and the hanging evil shadow of Mountbatten and Radcliffe were not enough, Pakistan’s horizons clouded with hostile acts of its neighbors in the east and the northwest. Their hostility cast perverse shadows across its path. Hindu leaders in their quest to re-unite India continued to hurl threats and saddle Pakistan with knotty problems to prevent the toddling state from standing on its own feet. They refused to accept the creation of Pakistan with good grace, and to settle all outstanding differences on the basis of justice and fair play. They regarded Pakistan as a transient euphoria of Muslims.
Sir Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army having read the intentions of the Indians opined, “I have no hesitation in affirming that the present Indian Cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the dominion of Pakistan on a firm basis”.
According to Brecher, “Most of Congress leaders and Nehru among them, subscribed to the view that Pakistan was not a viable state-politically, economically, geographically or militarily and that sooner or later the areas which had ceded would be compelled by force of circumstances to return to the fold”.
In struggling to create a state structure in the chaotic environments of partition and an early war with India over Kashmir, our managers remained tied down fighting the battle of survival and identity. There was no certainty that Pakistan would survive its traumatic birth. “Very few states in the world started with greater handicaps than Pakistan did on August 14, 1947”.
After a lapse of over six decades, it is rather not possible for the present younger generation to perceive the complexities faced by the pioneers of Pakistan at the time of independence. For those who lived through that trying period of history and personally experienced the turmoil, human tragedies, mass carnage of the Muslims by the Hindu-Sikh combine, and the Hindus abominable Bania mentality, it was a nightmare.
Given their common past spread over centuries it was hoped that the two countries after having won their independence from the seductive tentacles of the British Raj would close the chapter of suspicion and aversion and instead strive to live as peaceful neighbors. It was expected that rather than beating war drums and sinking into the bottomless ocean of arms race, leaders of the two countries would concentrate on well being of the people through mutual cooperation. Unfortunately, those hopes remained an elusive dream.
Adversarial history of sixty-two years covering the whole existence of the two nations has in fact made the minds captive of a hate each other syndrome. Jingoistic statements are often hurled at each other to play with the emotions of the people or to satisfy sadistic instincts. After tearing Pakistan into two in 1971, Indian hawkish leaders keep scheming to fragment rest of Pakistan. 1980s saw rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India. Militant BJP government in India that captured power twice repeatedly voiced its wish to reunite the subcontinent and to annex Azad Kashmir by force and vowed to establish Hindutva. Indian Congress is no less antagonistic towards Pakistan and has taken no steps to control growth of Hindu fundamentalism which is intolerant towards all other minorities in India.
Hate phobia and age-old prejudices in the two neighboring countries have not died down.
Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Religion on January 15th, 2010
This Article is dedicated to the Memory of Allama Dr.Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi (shaheed), a soldier of Islam for Peace and Brotherhood of all Fiqah, who was martyred by the forces of darkness and