Khareed o farookhat ka bazar

Khareed o farookhat ka bazar

By Orya Maqbool Jan

Breaking News

By Orya Maqbool Jan

Read More

Read More

Flood in Pakistan

This Worst Flood in the history of Pakistan has affected more than 30,00,000 people so far and More than 1,500 people have died in Pakistan’s northwestern province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa due to this flood. Government and private relief agencies are managing to provide “only 5 percent of what’s required” and Pakistani soldiers in the flood-scoured Swat Valley “are rescuing people from the water by helicopter”. See These Pictures and also check updated Pakistan Flood Pictures.
.
But in such a Horrible and worst condition, President of Pakistan, THE GREAT, ASIF ALI Zardari Sahab, are much interested in tours of Europe and France and it seems He dont care for these things.

Read More

Lies and the war that has not ended

 Lies and the war that has not ended

Dr James Zogby

During the past week, as President Barack Obama announced the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq, there was considerable media commentary focusing on the lies that had been utilised to build public support for the war. The two that received almost exclusive attention were the argument that Saddam had an active WMD programme and the assertion, made most vigorously by Vice President Richard Cheney, that there were "proven links" connecting the Iraqi leadership to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.


Both were, of course, deliberate fabrications but both did play important roles in shaping public opinion and justifying the invasion of Iraq. But the propaganda effort to win support for the war involved much more.


As I note in my forthcoming book Arab Voices, proponents for the war, preying on the public's lack of basic information about Iraq and its people, made exaggerated claims expressing confidence that the effort would be relatively painless. A former Pentagon official termed it a "cakewalk". Cheney said: "It'll go...quickly....Weeks rather than months." Paul Wolfowitz estimated the cost of the entire enterprise not to exceed one or two billion dollars, with Iraq's oil revenues quickly kicking into "finance its own reconstruction." President Bush and others added that "we would be greeted as liberators" ushering in a new democracy that would be "a beacon for a new Middle East."


Throughout the media universe, commentators echoed these boasts, regularly churning out outrageous claims on par with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's pre-Gulf War outrageous warning that that conflict would be the "mother of all battles."


Before the invasion began, for example, Fox News Bill O'Reilly, wagered "the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week." A similarly euphoric (and ultimately equally misleading) statement by Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, soon followed: "There is a certain amount of pop psychology in America that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni....There's almost no evidence of that at all." Finally, journalist Fred Barnes, another Fox News host, chimed in, saying: "The war was the hard part....And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but not as hard as winning a war."

Read More

Time to reclaim Jinnah’s Pakistan

Time to reclaim Jinnah’s Pakistan

With earnest power of belief, the Quaid considered the parliamentary system of government to achieve all the objectives of the creation of Pakistan, namely to enforce the golden principles of Islamic social justice and democracy, given by the great lawgiver: the Prophet of Islam (PBUH). He selected a special nomenclature for such democracy: Muslim democracy that could be an appropriate mechanism to get a blend of Islamic law with modern democratic institutions, ensuring peace and prosperity for the people of Pakistan.


In order to eliminate any potential confusion about Muslim democracy, the Quaid strongly elaborated the concept, while addressing a Sibi Darbar on February 14, 1948: “I have had one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH). Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that our decisions in the affairs of the state shall be guided by discussions and consultations.”


Thirdly, there would be no place for theocracy: self-claimed Godly guided people to run the affairs of the government. As a modern Muslim jurist and enlightened statesman, he differentiated Muslim democracy from British democracy and theocracy. He clarified the point in a broadcast talk to the people of Australia recorded on February 19, 1948: “The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). We are members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in rights, dignity and self-respect. Consequently, we have a special and a very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake: Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it.”


Similarly, on another occasion, while addressing the people of the United States of America on February, 1948, he ruled out theocracy, outlining the future Constitution of Pakistan and expressly stated that it would be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principle of Islam.


Fourthly, the founder of the nation had been unabatedly reminding the framers of the constitution and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, that human rights, particularly minority and women rights, would be above all the fundamentals of the future constitution. Perhaps, he left no occasion to stress upon their significance.


We, the people of Pakistan, are lucky to achieve with consensus the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, very close to the vision of Quaid-i-Azam, which constitutes it as a republic, federal, parliamentary and Islamic state, guaranteeing fundamental rights. Although it has been repeatedly held in abeyance by military rulers, but it provides a political bondage among the various section of society in the country.


Now, after a long and hard struggle, the constitutional democracy is well in operation; Pakistan is blessed with an independent judiciary, along with a free and strong media. The judiciary, due to its constitutional limits, can only remedy illegal governance, while the media can highlight bad governance. Nevertheless, good governance is only possible by an active Parliament and an efficient Cabinet, elected through a free and fair voting system.


In a parliamentary system of government, it is hard to find a separation of powers between a legislature and an executive, like in Pakistan. For example, we have had several martial laws, besides a controlled democracy, first as a partner, like the Convention and Q Leagues and then as an acceptable political alternative, brokered by the foreign powers through NRO or similar legal protection.


Needless to say, democracy is never controlled by a non-democratic power; it is always self-controlled. Every control on a democracy produces compliant democracy, whereas every controller of a democracy has a conflict of interest with a democracy. Therefore, the controlled democracy in Pakistan always reversed back to the martial law. Every democracy does not provide a good government; however, it creates a peaceful opportunity to get a good government.


So now is the time, not to push the democratic government - even though brought through international manoeuvring and arm twisting - back to the military regime, but to strive for more democracy. When our independent judiciary and free media are in full swing, in accordance with the constitution, the salvation from our chronic crisis of democratic leadership lies in cutting down of the vicious circle between the incumbent brokered democratic government and the apprehensions following martial law. Our destiny is not far away, to reclaim Quaid-i-Azam’s Pakistan. It just needs a sustainable nudge of the civil society.


The writer is an assistant professor at the Law College, Punjab University
Email: Malikaman35@hotmail.com

Read More

Lata Haya About Islam [HQ].avi

Read More

Existance of GOD

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new students to stand and...

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn’t. How is this God good then? Hmm?

Student: Silent.

Prof: You can’t answer, can you? Let’s start again, young fellow. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan(Shaitan) good?

Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: Silent.

Prof: Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it?

Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

Student: Silent.

Prof: Is there sickness, Immorality, Hatred, Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world,

don’t they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

Student: Silent.

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell

me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory

perception of God for that matter?

Student: No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn’t. (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. 

Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light,

normal light, bright light, flashing light... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing

and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were you would be able to make

darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is

death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something

we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism,

but has never seen, much less fully understood, either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. 

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.

Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shakes his

head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove

that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a

scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain? (The class breaks

out into laughter!)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt

it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,

demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do

we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face

unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir... The link between man and God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things

moving and alive.

Read More