The car came to a halt in front of a small building; an enormous board hung on the roof, emblazoned with the letters, ‘ISCS’. As I was informed, this was the only mosque in Colorado Springs. ‘Islamic Society of Colorado Springs’ was my presumed abbreviation of ISCS. Feeling a twinge of exhilaration at visiting the mosque for the first time in America, I stepped out of the car. My host mom was equally overjoyed to introduce herself to the rudiments of Islamic culture and of course, test the legitimacy of my words about Islam, particularly its key characteristic of ‘purity by heart’.

The place was not swarming with people; however, a myriad of teenage girls had clustered at a distance. No wonder, I was impressed by their attire. They were wearing hijab as they very elegantly await the mosque’s door to open. This led me to contemplation. Indeed, it requires a great deal of steadiness to practice your faith in US, with innumerable distractions at hand. I gaped at my own dress: jeans, shirt and a shawl to cover my body. Unquestionably not a ‘hijab’, nonetheless, an appropriate outfit.

I, along with my host mom, joined the small gathering.

“Assalamualaikum” One of the petite girls greeted me. I was taken aback and apparently, my face betrayed the bewilderment as the girl passed aggravated looks.

“Waalaikumussalam” I responded with a smile.

Later that day, I came to know that a majority of those girls were from Pakistan and had been residing in America since past 10 years or more. As I started a conversation, I was even more captivated at the thought of upholding Islamic values in USA. A new wave of guilt coursed through me as I had been in the states since four months and yet, was already so rapt by the lifestyle. In fact, I had failed to practice Islam properly.

Anyhow, we made our way inside the building. An imperceptible aura of tranquility wafted in the room; the finely laid ground mattresses and the adorned chairs added to the beauty. Shortly, the older members, along with my host mom, headed towards another room, leaving the teenagers behind. The next thing I knew, this was so not Islam. I was grateful my host mom was not with me.

The girls put off their hijab, revealing skin-tight, cleavage-exposing shirts. While one of the teenage girls was wearing a lucid blouse, the other had worn a mini skirt, exposing her extensive, ‘shiny’ legs.  As if this was not enough of a bombshell, they started conversing with each other, passing a string of profanities, later playing ‘I am sexy and I know it’ on their iPods and belly dancing on the beat. Rage? Embarrassment? Shame? Innumerable feelings flooded my entire being and my mind, at a speed of light, began to reflect upon the disrespect towards the mosque and Islam, in general.

In the same mosque, I met a newly converted Muslim lady. She was an American and had embraced Islam two years back. Her clothing shared a similarity to mine, expect that it was accompanied by a head scarf. Not surprisingly, I felt a pang of chagrin at realizing that, in comparison to my own self, she was better informed about Islam. Not only did she possess a greater knowledge but in fact, she was not carrying a two-faced persona with regard to it. In other words, she didn’t want to act ‘Islamic’ to show the world.

This event directs me towards consideration and finally, some conclusions. Firstly, Islam is not confined to your appearance but also one’s intentions by heart. What’s the point of feigning your ‘religious side’ when inside, you are like a rotten apple? Irony! Isn’t it uproarious how a person prays five times a day, yet indulge himself in all kinds of unseemly activities? How is this not hypocrisy? What’s more, for most of us, including me, Islam is an inherent part of our lives. Only the few blessed amongst us understand the true principle and significance behind it. On the contrary, Muslims, who study and later convert to Islam, are more likely to follow its teachings. I bet more than half of our population does not even know the meaning of the word ‘Islam’. Lastly, mosques shouldn’t be built at every other place, especially if the holy purpose of Islam is not being taught. Simply ignominy!
By the way, ‘I am sexy and I know it.’ Like seriously? They were not even sexy.

 
Post by: Faryal Hasan

March 29, was also no different for the community. At least five people were gunned down and six others received critical injuries when a van carrying people from Hazara community was ambushed on Spini road in Quetta. The assailants still remain ‘unidentified’ and at large as usual. Sajjad Hussain, one of my friends from the community, told this author the horrible incident took place just a few yards from check posts of Frontier Constabulary and police. So what? The security agencies have got hundred other important errands to do.

Available statistics show that around half a million Hazaras live in Quetta while more than 700 – obviously innocent – have been killed so far. The community is generally considered to be peaceful and nonviolent. Who is behind the killings? Intelligence agencies? Banned outfit – Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (Balochistan unit)? Dissident Baloch or activists of Balochistan Liberation Army? Or foreign element is behind the killings of the community?

Whatsoever, don’t worry. The security agencies have been working on some ‘valuable’ leads and culprits will be exposed soon. Wait, please. Brief and tarnished history of our country as it is shows us that back in 1971, our hyperactive security agencies made their best to staunch the uprising in East Pakistan with the help of al-Badar. Yes, you got it. The outfit was an offshoot of Jamat-e-Islami and was tasked to teach a lesson to ‘traitors’ in East Pakistan – now Bangladesh.

Who has imported Punjab-based Lashkar-e-Jhangvi – an extremist outfit obviously – to Balochistan? Is it created on the same lines of al-Badar? We leave these questions better to be answered by people sitting at the helm of affairs. But remember one thing; much touted foreign element behind unrest in Balochistan is yet to be exposed; let alone bringing killers of Hazara community to justice.

However, the most intriguing is the version of locals on the routine killings. My friend Sajjad who left Quetta some three years back owing to life threats opine that most of the attacks on the community take place in Baloch populated areas. The impression is given the community is being eliminated by Baloch dissidents as they are out for Greater Balochistan. Matter of the fact is the community is provoked against Baloch rebels after each incident. It seems as if the ‘secret hands’ want to crush the rebels with the help of Hazara community, this is what the locals say.

Irony of the situation is that federal and provincial governments have never bothered to constitute any ‘high-powered’ inquiry committee to probe genocide of the community. Hyperactive and restless Rehman Malik has also never deemed it worthy of paying a visit to Quetta to get updates on killing of the community. Obviously, the president and prime minister have got dozens other matters of public interest to look into and they issue statements from Islamabad to resolve Balochistan issue. What else can they do?

The complaint of the community has got weight that Chief Justice being a native of Balochistan remains oblivious to the almost daily attacks on the community. Massacre of Hazara community is, indeed, a matter of public interest and we plead to the chief justice through this article to take suo moto notice of the issue to mitigate sufferings of the community. The provincial government and law enforcement agencies should be directed to immediately restore sense of security in the community; otherwise they could also – God forbid – raise slogan for liberation of Balochistan.

Time is running out. Let’s see how and when our public representatives tackle the horrifying issue.

Read the full news report from Express Tribune..

Read the full report from Asian Human Rights Commission..

Author: Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

When I picked up “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, I was expecting to encounter new reasons put forward to form a positive case for the Atheist worldview, but I have to say that I was disappointed. What I read were rehashed, incoherent arguments that made me realize that Richard Dawkins is not very well read in philosophy. In light of this I thought it would be useful to respond to his main arguments in the following way:

1. Respond to what Dawkins considers his central argument;
2. Respond to what Philosophers consider his best argument.

Responding to what Dawkins considers his central argument

On pages 157-158 of “The God Delusion,” Dawkins summarises what he calls “the central argument of my book”:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
5. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

God almost certainly does not exist.

Preliminary Note

Before I go into Dawkins’ main points, I would like to address his conclusion “God almost certainly does not exist.” My main issue is – how does he conclude that God doesn’t exist from the above statements? It seems to me that his conclusion just jumps out of thin air, to infer that God does not exist just shows how invalid his argument is. It seems to me that the only delusion is Dawkins’ conviction that his argument is “a very serious argument against God’s existence.”

If we could conclude anything from Dawkins’ argument it would be that we should not infer that God exists based on the design of the universe. However, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist; we can believe in God’s existence from other arguments, which include:

• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness.

If we were to accept all of Dawkins’ statements, it would not be enough to reject the idea that God exists, and it certainly does not provide a case for Atheism. However, many of his statements are false. Let us take his statements and respond accordingly.

Statement #1: One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

I believe that it is only a challenge if you wish to take God out of the picture. It is indeed a challenge if you presume atheism to be true. However for someone who is reflective and thinks deeply about things, I think the simplest and the best explanation – with the greatest explanatory power – is that there is a supernatural designer. The next point will address why God makes sense of the design in the universe.

Statement #2: The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

This is not only a natural temptation but a rational conclusion brought to light based upon the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe. Let me start off by presenting the premises of this argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Explaining Premise One

The existence of a life permitting universe is due to conditions that must have been fined-tuned to a degree that is literally incalculable. Take the following examples:

• The Strength of Gravity & the Atomic Weak Force: Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.

• Big Bang’s Low Entropy Condition: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010 (123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123).”
• Volume of the phase space of possible universes: Roger Penrose of Oxford University states “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes” Now, how tiny is this volume? According to Penrose the volume of the phase space would be 1/10 to the power of X which is 10123. This is smaller than the ratio of a Proton! This precision is much, much greater than the precision that would be required to hit an individual proton if the entire universe were a dartboard!There are only three possible explanations for the presence of the above fine tuning of the universe:

1. Physical necessity;
2. Chance;
3. Design.

Why it cannot be Physical Necessity

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states:“Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn’t follow that the physical universe itself is unique…the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions…there is nothing in present ideas about ‘laws of initial conditions’ remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it…it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.”

Additionally if anyone was to take the view that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is due to physical necessity that would mean that it would be impossible to have a universe not fit for life! However as can be seen by the examples above, a slight change of any of the values or constants would mean the universe could not permit life.

Why it cannot be Chance

Some people who do not understand the impossibility of the universe coming into being by chance exclaim, “It could have happened by chance!” However would they say chance explains how an elephant was sleeping in their garage overnight? Or how a 747 ended up parked in their garden?

Even after their irrational perspective is highlighted, they still hold on to the theory that the universe can exist due to chance. In response to this I would argue that it is not just about chance but something the theorists call “specified probability.” Specified probability is a probability that also conforms to an independent pattern. To illustrate this, imagine you have a monkey in a room for twenty-four hours, typing a way on your laptop. In the morning you enter the room and you see, “O Romeo, O Romeo, where art thou O Romeo? Deny thy father and deny thy name…” The monkey has miraculously written out a Shakespearian sonnet! What you may have expected is random words such as “house,” “car,” and “apple.” However, in this case not only have you seen the improbability of typing intelligible English words – but they also conform to the independent pattern of English grammar! This is the same case with accepting that the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life was just by chance.

It must be Design

Since premises one and two are true, it follows that supernatural design is the most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life.

Statement #3: The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

The above statement, which is a contention to the design argument is flawed for two main reasons. First, anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation does not require an explanation! The following example illustrates this point.Imagine 500 years from now, a group of archaeologists start digging in London’s Hyde Park only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were not the result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of an unknown civilization. However if some skeptics were to argue that we cannot make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!

Second, if we take this contention seriously it could undermine the very foundations of science and philosophy themselves. If we require an explanation for the basic assumptions of science, for example that the external world exists, where do you think our level of scientific progress would be?

Additionally if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regression of explanations. And an infinite regression of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place – which is to provide an explanation!

A Note on Rejecting the Supernatural

Dawkins’ also rejects a supernatural designer because he thinks, as an explanation, it lack explanatory power; in other words, no advance is made. He raises this objection because he feels that a supernatural designer is just as complex as design. However Dawkins’ objection is problematic as he assumes that a supernatural designer is as complex as the universe. But a supernatural designer, in other words God, is one of the simplest concepts understood by all. This opinion is expressed by many Philosophers including the famous atheist turned theist Professor Anthony Flew.

Dawkins’ other assumption is that God is made of many parts; however, God is immaterial, transcendent and one. Just because God can do complex things does not make him complex, it seems to me that Dawkins confuses ability with nature. In other words, just because God can do complex things (such as creating the universe) it does not make His nature complex.

So it stands to reason that God is the simplest, and therefore the best, explanation.

Statement #4: The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinism evolution by natural selection and and we don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.

This statement is irrelevant due to the following reasons:

1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door;
2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities;
3. Evolution is impossible because we have not spent enough time on Earth yet.

Let me expand upon these points.

1. Evolution does not have its foot in the door

With regards to the existence of God, evolution does not even have its foot in the door; it’s about nine billion years away if we use the fine-tuning argument mentioned above. Simply put, evolution has no say.

2. Evolution is based upon incalculable probabilities

The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!

3. Evolution is impossible because we have not had enough time on Earth yet

According to John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, the calculated odds of assembling a single gene are between and 4-180 to 4-360. The implications of this are that there simply has not been sufficient time since the formation of the earth to try a number of nucleotide base combinations that can even remotely compare to these numbers!

Statement #5: We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Dawkins basically says that since there is a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design in species and we do not have a similar explanation for physics, we should just wait. Does this not sound like blind faith to you? The statement presumes scientific naturalism to be the only way of establishing facts or sound conclusions. Why else would he want to wait for a naturalistic explanation?Dawkins’ presumption that scientific naturalism is the only way to establish facts is not true because scientific naturalism cannot prove:

1. Logical truths such as mathematics – in actuality, logical truths are required to prove scientific naturalism. To argue the other way round would be tantamount to arguing in a circle.
2. Aesthetic truths such as beauty.
3. Moral truths such as right and wrong.

Finally, scientific naturalism is self-defeating as the statement “scientific naturalism is the only method to use to establish facts” cannot be proven using scientific naturalism!

It can be seen from the above that Dawkins’ central argument fails and is an embarrassment to the scientific community, as atheist Philosopher Michael Ruse explains, “…unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, “What caused God?” as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.”

Responding to what Philosophers consider his best argument

According to Philosopher and lecturer at Yale University, Gregory E. Granssle, Dawkins’ strongest argument can be found on page 55: “A universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.”

Dawkins’ argument can be summarised in the following way:

1. A universe created by God would be different than the one created by nature;
2. The universe we live in fits better to a universe created by nature;
3. Therefore the universe we live in is most likely to have been created by nature.

I would argue that Dawkins’ argument couldn’t be any further away from the truth; this is because the universe that we live in actually makes more sense being created by God for the following reasons.

1. The universe is ordered and open to rational anaylsis

If God did not exist, the universe would not display the order it does, and it would not be finely-tuned to permit our existence. Professor Roger Penrose states, “There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance…I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe.”

Additionally, the very fact that we can observe and perform rational analysis on the patterns we perceive in the universe makes more sense if God did exist, because in a naturalistic universe things would be expected to be more chaotic. This does not mean a universe without a God could not be ordered; however it is more likely that God would create an ordered universe, and since the universe we live in is ordered it makes sense that God’s existence fits well with our universe

2. The universe contains conscious and aware beings
A universe that contains consciousness and awareness makes sense with the existence of God. A universe without a God would be very different to the one we are living in.

Explanation

Human beings experience things all the time. This article you are reading is an experience; even talking about your experience is an experience. However the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the one who experiences it – in other words ourselves. When we realise that there is a first-person, an “I”, “me” or “mine,” we come to face a profound mystery. The Philosopher Roy Abraham Varghese puts it nicely when he wrote, “To reverse Descartes, ‘I am, therefore I think…’ Who is this ‘I’? ‘Where’ is it? How did it come to be? Your self is not just something physical.”

The self is not a physical thing; it is not contained in any cell or biological structure. The most unchallenged and intuitive reality is that we are all aware, but we cannot describe or explain what this awareness is. One thing that we can be sure of is that the self cannot be explained biologically or chemically. The main reason for this is that science does not discover the self; it is actually the other way round. For science to try and explain the truth of the self would be tantamount to arguing in a circle! Even scientists recognise this; the physicist Gerald Schroeder points out that there is no real difference between a heap of sand and the brain of an Einstein. The advocates of a physical explanation for the self end up in a muddle as they require answers to even bigger questions, such as “How can certain bits of matter suddenly create a new reality that has no resemblance to matter?”

So if the self cannot be explained physically then the next question must be asked: “How did it come to be?” The history of the universe indicates that consciousness spontaneously arose, and language emerged without any evolutionary forerunner. So where did it come from? Even the neo-atheists have failed to come to terms with the nature of the self and its source, because no physical explanation is coherent enough to be convincing. Even Richard Dawkins almost admits defeat concerning the self and consciousness; he states, “We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”

The best explanation for the nature and source of the self is that it came from a source that is thinking, aware and conscious. How else can the self, which is an entity with a capacity to reflect and experience, manifest itself? It cannot have come from unconscious matter incapable to experience and ponder. Simply put, matter cannot produce concepts and perceptions, therefore we can conclude that the self cannot have a material basis but must have come from a living source that transcends the material world; and this is best explained by God. No other answer provides an adequate explanation for this phenomenon.

3. The universe contains objective morality

We all believe that killing 6 million Jews during World War II was morally wrong, however not only do we believe it was morally wrong we believe it was objectively morally wrong. What I mean by objective is that if the Nazis had successfully taken over Europe and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide, it would still be objectively morally wrong regardless of human experience. However since our universe contains objective morality then it can only make sense with God’s existence, because God is required as rational basis for objective morality. Without God morality is subjective, because God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity. So the universe with objective morality makes no sense without God. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.

Explaining the key premise

The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it as,“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

Paul Kurtz is right; God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. To explain this further let us discuss alternative conceptual foundations for morality.

In God’s absence, there are only two alternative conceptual foundations

1. Social pressure

2. Evolution

Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding – true regardless of who believes in them. Therefore without God, there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,

“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”

Since the universe contains objective morality, and Gods existence is necessary as a conceptual foundation for objective morals, then the universe we live in makes sense with the existence of God.

A Quick Note on Religious “Evils”

Before I conclude I would like to highlight that a response to Dawkins’ other contentions with the concept of God and religious life. Dawkins seems to attribute all the negative and evil things to religion. However there is a strong argument that these things are not unique to religion itself, but the common conceptual dominator is humanity. This is summarised well by Keith Ward, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, he writes, ‘“It is very difficult to think of any organised human activity that could not be corrupted…The lesson is that anti-religious corruptions and religious corruptions are both possible. There is no magic system or belief, not even belief in liberal democracy, which can be guaranteed to prevent it.”

To illustrate this let me use the outdated cliché of “religions are the cause war and conflict” and show how war and conflict are not unique to religions. In the relatively short history of secularism the following massacres have committed in the name of non-religious ideologies such a communism and social-Darwinism:

• 70,000,000 under chairman Mao
• 20,000,000 under Stalin
• 2,000,000 no longer exist because of Pol Pot
• 700,000 innocent Iraqi’s in the current occupation
• 500,000 Iraqi children in the 10 year sanctions

So it can be clearly seen above that war and conflict are not religious monopolies, rather they are human phenomena and not unique to religion.

Conclusion

This article attempted to respond to Richard Dawkins’ best-seller “The God Delusion” by responding to his central argument and the argument that Philosophers consider to be his best. However, intellectual gymnastics – no matter how truthful – seldom convinces others, so I thought it would best to allow the expression of God – the Qur’an – to have the final say. In the wonderful eloquence and sublime style God says,

In the creation of the heavens and Earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people’s benefit, and the water which God sends down from the sky – by which He brings the Earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind – and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and Earth, there are signs for people who use their intellect. Qur’an, 2:164

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis is an international public speaker and a writer. Hamza presents “Face The Faith” on Islam Channel and is a senior researcher and lecturer for IERA. He has debated prominent intellectuals and academics. Some of his interlocutors include the leading humanist Peter Cave, the editor of the Philosophy Now magazine Rick Lewis and the highly acclaimed professor Simon Blackburn. More recently Hamza debated one of the leading American atheists and secular activists Dr. Ed Buckner. Follow Hamza on Twitter @HATzortzis

The defence for Mumtaz Qadri, the self-confessed murderer of slain Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, has adopted a simple strategy to save the remorseless killer. Taseer’s statements were “unbecoming of a Muslim” and therefore Qadri, a devout Muslim, could not control his emotions and resorted to an instantaneous act [..]

Read the rest of this entry…

The lectureshop addressed many issues related to marital and single lives of Muslims. They included the issues which are often regarded as taboo in a society like Pakistan.

The event also clarified many misconceptions about treating women in Islam and openly rejected beating women citing the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad PBUH that he never raised his hand on any of his wives. Many other similar examples were also discussed including the possibility of having an argument between spouses.

Special thank to DiscoMaulvi for live tweeting the event.

A leading Islamic scholar has received a standing ovation from thousands of UK Muslims as he denounced terrorism and called for peace.

Wembley Arena in north-west London was a sea of colourful robes as an estimated 12,000 Muslims gathered to give their backing to a global declaration of peace.

Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, founder of the Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI) movement, was repeatedly applauded during a speech in which he said the “terrible” 9/11 attacks in the US had distorted perceptions of Islam over the past decade [..]

Read the full news entry here…

Photo: Radio Liberty

Guppu.Com | News Alert | Int’l Desk
Source/Credit: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
By News Agencies | September 22, 2011

A French woman who wears the Islamic face veil, despite a nationwide ban, says she wants to run for president in next year’s elections in France [..]

Read full news report here . . .

Image via Wikipedia

Guppu.Com | News Alert | Int’l Desk
Source/Credit: Dawn News
By News Agencies | September 20, 2011

QUETTA: Gunmen opened fire on a bus in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan in a suspected sectarian attack on Tuesday, killing around 24 Shia Muslim pilgrims travelling to Iran, police said.

“The bus was travelling to the town of Tuftan when it was attacked,” a police official in Quetta, the provincial capital, told Reuters.

The gunmen were riding on a motorcycle. According to sources the gunmen entered the bus and opened fire, DawnNews reported.

Emergency was declared in hospitals in Quetta. The death toll is expected to rise.

See original post here: Around 24 Shia pilgrims killed in Quetta

Editors Note: We’re launching this new series in the wake of worst on going sectarian crises in Pakistan. We have named it as “Sectarian Emergency!” Please write to us and contribute blog posts / news items on the subject.

Related articles

• Deadly gun attack on Pakistan bus (bbc.co.uk)