Thanks dear Sabahat for your guidance. And yes i agree with you that the paper looks like a current affair's paper but one has to mould one's knowledge to suit it for the given scenario. Theoretical knowledge of this topic may also be applied on this topic.

Regards.

Yes dear.Repeated topics should first be dealt with but i ll suggest to cover the whole syllabus,only then will we be confident for the paper.

Regards

__________________
We can trust the man of troubles but not on the man of pleasures.

An Advise:
Do not load your paper with Quranic references and Ahadith.Wherever necessary and relevant,give them,but do not go on loading your paper with them,if you know what I mean.Use them to support your arguments,analysis and comments,rather than doing the other way round.Nowadays,and rightly so,the examiners look for your own analysis and description of the question,rather than just cramming references and 'firing' them at him.Islamiyat paper is the reason I love CSS,it just filters the best from the rest.

__________________
I shall either find a way,or make one
'Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa'

Which way of giving Quranic reference in support of argument is right?

The Holy Quran says:

“And observe prayer, and pay the poor-rate and bow with those who bow.”


OR

The Holy Quran says:

“And observe prayer, and pay the poor-rate and bow with those who bow.”
(Al-Baqara)

OR

The Holy Quran says:

“And observe prayer, and pay the poor-rate and bow with those who bow.”
(Al-Baqara: 43)

In short, i want to to ask is it necessary to give the number of Ayat along with the name of Surah as given in third Surah above? or what if during the exams one remembers neither the name of the Surah nor the number of Ayat?will it be enough to write just as The Holy Quran says neither giving the name of the Surah nor the number of the Ayat?

Regards

Abso;utely no need to give the Ayah and surah number after giving the reference.Apply your energies constructively elsewhere.

__________________
I shall either find a way,or make one
'Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa'

well roshan its a good outline,but i have a question can you plz write some arguments here which are asked in question no;3.

__________________
GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi.

Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

Freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end.

Suppose a Palestinian Arab jihadi straps on an explosive belt and detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which includes freedom from Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Freedom is his end, but terror is his means. It is nonsense to say that he is a terrorist to Israelis and their supporters and a freedom fighter to Palestinians and their supporters. He is objectively both. It is not a matter of 'perception' or point of view or which side one is on.

Another Palestinian renounces terrorism and fights for freedom from occupation by the path of negotiation. He is objectively a freedom fighter and objectively no terrorist. A third case might be an Israeli terrorist who blows up a Palestinian hospital or mosque in revenge for Palestinian terrorist attacks. He is objectively a terrorist but objectively not a freedom fighter.

So there are two reasons to avoid 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, means his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn't matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs.

good piece of writing,infact i was confused what to write in the ans. but you solved my confusion. examples are beautifully defined,i like the end.keep it up.

well how`s your preparations going,hope on a full swing.best of luck and pray for all of us for our result.

__________________
GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi.

Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

My goodness gracious me!!! i have been struggling with islamiyat for the past month.finding resources and references and trying to cope with the kind of contemporary questions that islamyat papers deal with recently! this thread was a breath of fresh AIR! GOD SENT! RELIEF!
GOD BLESS YOU Sir Roshan and Ms Sabahat!!! i have been at my wits end preparing for islamiyat ... i really cant thank you enough.

HI to Mr Roshan and Miss Sabahat, i have been reading your collaborative efforts for making the notes and would like to appreciate both of you for sincere efforts and loyal support for each others... the issue of one man's terror and other man's freedom fighter tickled to give my own opinion.
i have read the writing of Mr. Roshan on the aforesaid question i suggest member to understand the question at first and the underlying theme.

the theme is we have to explain what is jihad and wts the terrorism, meaning thereby we ought to explain what is wrong and what is right.. in urdu i would say, Humain Shar aur Kher mei faraq batana hoga.

now fighting or asserting effort for right cause (to protect your right and stand against aggressor) is Jihad in the light of Islam, and the proper way of use of force for this purpose is also allowed by Islam So using right force for right cause can never be terrorism though the world may call fighter as terrorists

Similarly fighting for strategic interests in such a way that other's interest are hurt it shall always fall under category of Shar, Hence they are real terrorist in the light of Islam they world may call them freedom fighters

therefore, the litmus test or the only parameter for judging a fighter as freedom fighter or terrorist shall be the underlying cause...

here in question we shall be quoting the examples of aggrieved nations of the world who have legitimately stood against aggressors.

ur notes are very good. iwant ask u that when we write answer in examination we should write outlines or not.......