مولانا مناظر احسن گیلانی اور ان کی صوفیانہ فکر

Juristic rules laid the foundation of law, along with such juristic rules, Islām promotes the values of piety (through mystic guidelines). Most of the theologians opine that the real approach to get close the Creator can only be achieved through the mystic guidelines. In the early period of Islām, during the time of the prophet, , caliphate guided rightly the of periods the during and (صلى الله عليه وسلم) Muhammad when people were trained in a very righteous environment, there were no such reservations about the applications of clear jurisprudential injunctions along with the mystic guidelines, but, when Muslims tasted the grandeur of rule, regime and abundance of wealth, they indulged in the worldly affairs and adopted a materialistic approach, not only in their daily life, but, toward their religion, too. The Muslim thinkers have been trying to define and explain whether the typical rituals of mysticism are reconcilable with the larger demands of an Islamic vocabulary. Despite the wide diversity of the critical approaches, a certain pattern has been identified by Muslim responses as mysticism, which is, sometimes found closer to asceticism and sometime as a mediator. Many Muslim mystics have dealt with mysticism, but, perhaps, Manāẓir Aḥsan Gīlānī has displayed, with reference to Ibn ‘Arabī and Shāh Walī Ullāh, the most impressive and knowledgeable applications of such mystic ideas within an Islamic framework. Manāẓir’s applied mysticism is not a typical mysticism; his special focus upon legal injunctions of al-Sharī‘ah goes much further than any of his peers in establishing a strong framework for better understanding of Islām. This study is devoted to examining the effects and implications of mysticism, not only for individuals, but also for the Muslim masses, generally.

Coverage of War on Terror: A Comparative Analysis of Pakistani, Indian and American Print Media

September 11, 2001 left an ineradicable impact on how the news media frame events for audience understanding and consumption. This study suggests that media especially print media covers War on Terror differently from other times of war, conflict or crisis. The study “Coverage of War on Terror: A Comparative Analysis of Pakistani, Indian and American Print Media” conducted to determine the comparative coverage and portrayal of War on Terror in Pakistan. The study also aimed to find out how these three selected countries i.e. Pakistan, India and America, print media portray and how considerably they covers the War on terror in Pakistan, which also benefit to know the policy of government concerned. This study also analyzes to what extent Pakistani, Indian and American print media followed its foreign policy guidelines in the coverage of War on Terror. Content analysis method of quantitative research is used to prove the hypotheses and to answer the emerging questions. The study supports the theoretical framework of „Framing and agenda setting theories‟ that emphasized on the importance of portrayal and interpretation of mass media in shaping behaviors attitudes and emotional reactions of people. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) was used for data analysis and statistical testing of the variables. Microsoft Excel and word document software‟s were also used for composing, graphics, tables and charts in this study. This study observes that actually, the New York Times pays little consideration to Pakistan and third words countries, and when it pays consideration, it tends to cover negative news. Pakistan is more frequently covers unfavorable than positive likewise encircled more frequently as a fundamentalist than a liberal state by the Hindu. Dawn focuses on lacerates of Pakistani nation in-terms of lives and economy in the War on Terror. The study analyses that foreign policy influences media content relating to international events, crises and conflicts like War on terror. The findings are also suggest that that the New York Times tend to portray positively those countries that are close to the interests of the United States even when they represent nondemocratic regimes.