Audios of Dr.Israr Ahmed on Internet

47 views
Skip to first unread message

Asif Hameed

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
Assalam-o-Alaikum,
Dear Brothers & Sisters in Islam,
Good News for you.
The Audio of Khitab-e-Juma & other important Topics in the voice
of Renowned Scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed are available on Internet
at
http://www.brain.net.pk/~aasif
We invite you to visit the site & hear to the Uluum-e-Qurani youreself
And please send your comments and suggestions at aa...@brain.net.pk
Wassalam
Asif Hameed
Nazim Shoba Sama-o-Basar


Jochen Katz

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
In article <6o8mdh$onm$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
"Asif Hameed" <aa...@brain.net.pk> writes:


Thank you for the pointer to that site. I went and read,
and have an observation...

Go to press release section, and it starts with this statement:

*********************************************************************
JULY 10, 1998
Lahore (July 10, 1998) Press Release: Any willful act, writing, or
speech that dishonors and insults the Holy Prophet Muhammad (God's
peace and blessings be upon him) constitute "blasphemy" against the
Prophet, and is punishable by death under the Pakistani law. The
non-Muslim world, because of the domination of secularism, is
incapable of grasping the significance that this law has for the
stability of a Muslim society. This was stated by Dr. Israr Ahmad,
Ameer of Tanzeem-e-Islami, while addressing a Friday Congregation at
the Darussalam Mosque in Bagh-e-Jinnah (Lahore).
*********************************************************************

This is as far as I know a significant Muslim movement,
and not an extreme terrorist fringe group.

It is actually interesting that it does not speak about
blasphemy against God but only about blasphemy against
Muhammad. For some reason, Muhammad has taken the place
of God and insulting Muhammad is more grieveous than
insulting God.

Usually the word blasphemy refers to speaking offensive
words against God, isn't that so? Why then have many
Muslims exchanged its meaning in this way?

Comments?


-----

Actually, from an earlier newsgroup posting, we can see the
law (assuming this is the full quotation, which I do not know.)

*********************************************************************
(Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 12th October 1986)
Vol. XXXVIII-1986 Central Statues 71

1. Short title and commencement.
(1) This act may be called the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1986 (2) It
shall come into force at once.
2. Insertion of new section 295-C, Act XLV of 1860. In the Pakistan
Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), after section 295-B, the following new
section shall be inserted, namely:
"295-C, Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet.
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible
representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly
or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) shall be punished with DEATH, or IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE, and shall also be liable to fine."
*********************************************************************

This does indeed only speak of the SACRED NAME of Muhammad,
not about defiling the name of God, but only about insult to
Muhammad.

I find that a very interesting observation. Also, that there
seems to be no such protection of the name of Jesus or the
other prophets in this law. Could it be that this law is
no only idolaterous, but also anti-Qur'anic in the sense that
it makes a difference between the messengers which the Qur'an
explicitely forbids?

When are Muslims standing up against this law which is
a shame in many respects? It is regularly used by Muslims
to accuse Christian neighbors and the Christian testimony
doesn't count against the testimony of a Muslim and so
many injust sentences are being pronounced in the name
of God on innocent people.

Not too long ago, a child of a Christian was imprisoned
and judged to have blasphemed Muhammad by writing insulting
statements on the wall of a mosque. It was irrelevant to
the case that the child was actually illiterate and could
not even write. If you are accused by a Muslim, you are
by definition guilty.

This is the reality of Christians under "Islamic law" in
Pakistan and also in other parts of the Muslim world.

Jeremiah McAuliffe

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:

>Usually the word blasphemy refers to speaking offensive
>words against God, isn't that so?

Yes, to my understanding this is so. Frankly, I find the attitudes of
many of my Muslim brothers and sisters to be horrendous and contrary
to the ethos presented by the Qur'an and sunnah. Now, as an American,
free speech is something I value very highly, and frankly, it seems
like only an American degree of free speech can fit in with the
command that there be no compulsion in matters of religion.

A law regarding "blasphemy" against Muhammad, may God love and keep
him always, displays one of our great theological errors: a de facto
idolization of the man.....

imho, of course.

Upgrade this Fall
Jeremiah McAuliffe/ ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html

see...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to
In article <6ofg5l$2p5$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) wrote:
> Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> >Usually the word blasphemy refers to speaking offensive
> >words against God, isn't that so?
>

Call it whatever you want. Speaking offensive words against the Prophet
Mohammed(SAAW) should never be tolerated by Muslims. What is the need for
offensive words and insulting?! You can discuss WHATEVER you want, you can
have your different views, you can deny the truth, you can keep your
disbelief till your last breath - hell is large enough. But you have NO right
to insult and slander others in anyway and the line between discussing and
critically examining matters and insulting others is clear enough that even
little children can in ease recognize.

>
> Yes, to my understanding this is so. Frankly, I find the attitudes of
> many of my Muslim brothers and sisters to be horrendous and contrary
> to the ethos presented by the Qur'an and sunnah. Now, as an American,
> free speech is something I value very highly, and frankly, it seems
> like only an American degree of free speech can fit in with the
> command that there be no compulsion in matters of religion.

What has "free speech" to do with insulting and slandering others!! Some go
too far in the length, others in the width..Some want to- contrary to what
Allah(SW) and His Prophet(SAAW) has established- suppress others and deny
their God given free will, and others, as brother Jermieth is obviosuly
suggesting here, want us to in the name of "free speech" to simply swallow
insulting our faith and our Prophet(SAAW)!

>
> A law regarding "blasphemy" against Muhammad, may God love and keep
> him always, displays one of our great theological errors: a de facto
> idolization of the man.....

Doing some more carefull Qur'ran readings, especially passages talking about
the noble Prophet, will- inschallah- bring you to a different conclusion,
imho, of course.


W'assallam

Seeraj

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Jeremiah McAuliffe

unread,
Jul 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/17/98
to
Salaams,

see...@my-dejanews.com wrote:


>Call it whatever you want. Speaking offensive words against the Prophet
>Mohammed(SAAW) should never be tolerated by Muslims.

True, but the issue has to do with how we express our intolerance of
such things. Death for such a thing is incorrect, imho, and only
continues to feed stereotypes of us being fanatical hot-heads with a
lust for killing.

There is a saying in the States that every child learns: "sticks and
stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me".

>disbelief till your last breath - hell is large enough. But you have NO right
>to insult and slander others in anyway and the line between discussing and
>critically examining matters and insulting others is clear enough that even
>little children can in ease recognize.

There is a difference between insult and slander-- slander is a legal
term in the States. To my understanding one is free in the States to
insult anyone or anything. Again, think of the child's saying quoted
above. Slander is another issue. However, I don't know if one can
slander the dead. One would have to check with a lawyer.

We see all the time on the newsgroups the difference between people
who want to critically examine issues and those who merely want to
vent their spleen. To put legal restrictions on such talk is a
dangerous game. I think it is best to err on the side of liberality
with regards to speech. If anything, it allows us to know who is who,
so to speak.


>> Yes, to my understanding this is so. Frankly, I find the attitudes of
>> many of my Muslim brothers and sisters to be horrendous and contrary
>> to the ethos presented by the Qur'an and sunnah. Now, as an American,
>> free speech is something I value very highly, and frankly, it seems
>> like only an American degree of free speech can fit in with the
>> command that there be no compulsion in matters of religion.
>
>What has "free speech" to do with insulting and slandering others!! Some go
>too far in the length, others in the width..Some want to- contrary to what
>Allah(SW) and His Prophet(SAAW) has established- suppress others and deny
>their God given free will, and others, as brother Jermieth is obviosuly
>suggesting here, want us to in the name of "free speech" to simply swallow
>insulting our faith and our Prophet(SAAW)!

I guess part of my issue is that Muslims expend great energy because
some call Muhammad (may God love him) names. But when it comes to
feeding the hungry we are noticibly passive..... its a question of
priorities. In Pakistan there are laws against "blasphemy" but not
against starvation. Are these Muslim priorities? No. They are cheap
ways to feed our mass delusion that we are righteous, pious and
"good" Muslims. In my opinion, of course.

>> A law regarding "blasphemy" against Muhammad, may God love and keep
>> him always, displays one of our great theological errors: a de facto
>> idolization of the man.....
>
>Doing some more carefull Qur'ran readings, especially passages talking about
>the noble Prophet, will- inschallah- bring you to a different conclusion,
>imho, of course.
>

Yes. It brought me to the conclusion stated above: that our "offense"
when the Prophet is called names is a cheap and self-serving delusion
and is more often than not an excuse for compulsion in matters of
religion, and a smoke-screen attempting to cover up the fact that we
are not doing what we should be doing, such as feeding the hungry.

Again, if there is not legal freedom for non-believers to hurl
invective and call God and His messengers nasty names, how can there
be "no compulsion in matters of religion"???


As always, Allahu 'alim.

see...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
In article <6onie7$srm$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) wrote:
>
> Salaams,
>

W'assallam,

>>Call it whatever you want. Speaking offensive words against the Prophet
>>Mohammed(SAAW) should never be tolerated by Muslims.
>
>True, but the issue has to do with how we express our intolerance of
>such things. Death for such a thing is incorrect, imho, and only
>continues to feed stereotypes of us being fanatical hot-heads with a
>lust for killing.
>

Talk is here about PRINCIPLE ATTITUDE and not about death or any
other specific punishment. Formulating and applying laws and punishments
is a complex issue that should be completely left to those qualified and
in charge with.

Being hot-headed and jumping to hasty and exaggerated emotional reactions
to every word said here or there is indeed an unfortunate and bad habit
of many Muslim individuals and organizations. Just read, for example,
some of the counter-productive and sometimes ridicules CAIR alerts (not
to deny their great and balanced efforts in other occasions).. But curing
the illness can never be reached by jumping far into the opposite extreme.
Telling people to stay quit and passive while their faith, values and
honor are being trampled before their noses is stupidity and idiotic.
How to react in such situations is a long and wide topic. In places where
Islam is ruling, letting authorities and people in charge deal with the
situations according to OFFICIAL and KNOWEN laws and regulations is the
best and probably the ONLY way. In other places, there are no certain
recipes, but wisdom and maturity.

>There is a saying in the States that every child learns: "sticks and
>stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me".

This is YOUR States culture and you are entitled to it. This culture might
sometimes make sense and is damned nonsense many other times. Whatever
it is, you have no right in mixing or confusing it with Islam.

>>disbelief till your last breath - hell is large enough. But you have NO right
>>to insult and slander others in anyway and the line between discussing and
>>critically examining matters and insulting others is clear enough that even
>>little children can in ease recognize.
>
>There is a difference between insult and slander-- slander is a legal
>term in the States. To my understanding one is free in the States to

>insult anyone or anything. ..
>....

Brother Jeremiah is apparently trying to judge Islam according to the
culture and legal system of the states. It seems he is living with "two
hearts in his inside".
Islam never asks anyone to abandon his culture or personality as long as
that dosn't contradict basic values of Islam. But changing the role and
judging Islam according to ones culture and legal system is, for a Muslim,
indeed a way too off.
In every country, the states no exception, there are certain, BY LAW,
punishable actions such as insulting (!!) the national flag. For many
people, a flag is nothing but a piece of a cloth, does this free those
people from punishment? Certainly not. Why this right to guard certain
values against offense is given and respected for everyone and is denied
only for Muslims?!

The "limitless" freedom in the states, which brother Jeremiah is full with
enthusiasm about, is a fact as far as insulting Islam and it's followers
is The norm. Let us but invite brother Jeremith (,or better some
politicians in the states) to publicly and fairly talk, for example, about
the tragedy of the Palestinian people and their miserable situation and
tell the truth about the affair (which they know quit well) and see how
far this "freedom" reaches!

>We see all the time on newsgroups the difference between people


>who want to critically examine issues and those who merely want to
>vent their spleen. To put legal restrictions on such talk is a
>dangerous game. I think it is best to err on the side of liberality
>with regards to speech. If anything, it allows us to know who is who,
>so to speak.

There is no need for any legal restrictions in this newsgroup, let katz
and Co. freely enjoy their favorite hobby and their daily joy. Everyone
who comes to this forum knows in advance that the place is contaminated
by those deranged missionaries. But, in a society that chooses Allah(SWT)
as it's lord and Mohammed(SAW) as it's sole teacher and example,
people have the full right to be protected from profanity and dirt.

>I guess part of my issue is that Muslims expend great energy because
>some call Muhammad (may God love him) names. But when it comes to
>feeding the hungry we are noticibly passive..... its a question of
>priorities.

I am sure those who are touched when the Prophet(SAW) is called names
Are In particular the ones who are mostly feeding the hungry and the
alleged question of priority has absolutely nothing to do here, it is
ridicules to bring this question at all in this regard. Must one be
careless about his values and his honor to feed the hungry?! Is this also
an "American" tradition!

>In Pakistan there are laws against "blasphemy" but not

>against starvation. Are these Muslim priorities? No. They are chea..

,,certainly not! They must immediately cancel this law until the hungry
is full up and than they can reintroduce it if they wanted. Maybe the
process of feeding the hungry will be even faster and smoother without
this law.. What do you think brother Jeremiah?

>>> A law regarding "blasphemy" against Muhammad, may God love and keep
>>> him always, displays one of our great theological errors: a de facto
>>> idolization of the man.....
>>
>>Doing some more carefull Qur'ran readings, especially passages talking about
>>the noble Prophet, will- inschallah- bring you to a different conclusion,
>

>Yes. It brought me to the conclusion stated above: that our "offense"
>when the Prophet is called names is a cheap and self-serving delusion

Mashallah,,brother Jeremiah knows wholesaled what is in the hearts of
others and he is blindly sure about it too! How great.

>and is more often than not an excuse for compulsion in matters of
>religion, and a smoke-screen attempting to cover up the fact that we
>are not doing what we should be doing, such as feeding the hungry.

Feeding the hungry is indeed a task of highest priority, but connecting
it in this silly way with the topic in hand is something beyond my
understanding and is for me nothing but a cheap way to justify ones
whims.

>Again, if there is not legal freedom for non-believers to hurl
>invective and call God and His messengers nasty names, how can there
>be "no compulsion in matters of religion"???

,,and the above is the top of it all!! So, according to the respected
brother Jermiah, one can not properly practice his freedom without
falling into the dirt of profanity, offensive and ugly words!!
Subhaan Allah!


W'as1sallam

Jeremiah McAuliffe

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to
Salaams,

see...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <6onie7$srm$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) wrote:
>>

>Talk is here about PRINCIPLE ATTITUDE and not about death or any
>other specific punishment.

I thought it was originated because of Pakistan's death penalty for
blasphemy. I may have confused it with other threads of the same
topic.

> Formulating and applying laws and punishments
>is a complex issue that should be completely left to those qualified and
>in charge with.

Well, engaged in mutual consultation with the governed! I do not
support authoritarian forms of government.

>Telling people to stay quit and passive while their faith, values and
>honor are being trampled before their noses is stupidity and idiotic.

Did anyone say that? If so, I missed it. I didn't write that, nor
would I. If I implied it somehow it was a miscommunication. I *think*
I indicated the opposite.

>How to react in such situations is a long and wide topic.

Yup.

> In places where
>Islam is ruling,

Such as...... Medina 1400 years ago? ;-)

>letting authorities and people in charge deal with the
>situations according to OFFICIAL and KNOWEN laws and regulations is the
>best and probably the ONLY way.

Ah. Well. This sounds not only authoritarian, but a bit extremist as
well. There are ALWAYS "other ways" that may also seem reasonable and
correct to many people.

I guess part of the issue would be: who defines who is an "authority"
and how do people get put in charge of things? That I don't know.


>>There is a saying in the States that every child learns: "sticks and
>>stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me".
>
>This is YOUR States culture and you are entitled to it. This culture might
>sometimes make sense and is damned nonsense many other times. Whatever
>it is, you have no right in mixing or confusing it with Islam.

Agree. Now then, could it be just possible that you are confusing
your own cultural background with Islam? If you are born Muslim it is
much more likely for you to do this than it is for I, a convert.

For instance, you make strong statements regarding law-making and
government in a hypothetical Islamic state. But you make no mention
of shura.

With my cultural background as American the concept and activity of
shura is of great importance and value to me. It may not be the case
with people from other cultural backgrounds. But shura, though
Americans would be sensitive, maybe even overly-sensitive to it, is
clearly Islamic. Yes?


>Brother Jeremiah is apparently trying to judge Islam according to the
>culture and legal system of the states.

No. That is your projection. I merely stated something regarding the
topic of "free speech" as it is understood in the States.

I'm just discussing the issue. Not giving fatwas-- you don't find me
saying things like "this is the ONLY way".... <ahem!>

> It seems he is living with "two
>hearts in his inside".

Glad you took some time to get to know me first.

>Islam never asks anyone to abandon his culture or personality as long as
>that dosn't contradict basic values of Islam. But changing the role and
>judging Islam according to ones culture and legal system is, for a Muslim,
>indeed a way too off.

Yes. Agree. And again, 1) I acknowledge my possible prejudices. On
more than one occassion I've drawn attention to my cultural
background and how that may be effecting my statements. 2) As a
convert, I'm in a better position to see confusion between Islamic
teachings and cultural traditions-- unlike born Muslims for whom such
a distinction would be much more difficult as the two have been
merged in their experience. Converts experience a break and split in
their exprience of life, and so can more easily see the two
sides.....

Y'see, your very projection of incorrect meaning onto my writing, and
jumping to conclusions regarding my heart speaks right to this issue.
Are YOU acting out YOUR cultural behaviors? Or Islamic behaviors? :-)


>The "limitless" freedom in the states, which brother Jeremiah is full with
>enthusiasm about,

Again, and extremist statement. And a projection of meaning onto what
I wrote. There was nothing, and has been nothing as far as I am
aware, that would justify your cheap rhetoric against me here.

For one, in discussing the issue, perhaps in another post, I brought
up the issues of limits to free speech in the States. I recall
specifically talking about consequences to certain types of speech.

>is The norm. Let us but invite brother Jeremith (,or better some
>politicians in the states) to publicly and fairly talk,

That's what I'm doing. However, I do not think YOU are being fair
towards me. Not at all.


That's enough. I'm not even going to read the rest of this post, as
it seems clear that Seeraj has some other issues to deal with.....

see...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/24/98
to
In article <6p00l7$cpq$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) wrote:

> Salaams,
>

W'asallam

> > Formulating and applying laws and punishments
> >is a complex issue that should be completely left to those qualified and
> >in charge with.
>

> Well, engaged in mutual consultation with the governed! I do not
> support authoritarian forms of government.

Nor do I, authoritarian goverments are a dreadful evil and anarchie
is another, no less, evil.

>
> >How to react in such situations is a long and wide topic.
>

> Yup.


>
> > In places where
> >Islam is ruling,
>

> Such as...... Medina 1400 years ago? ;-)
>

,,and such as the hearts of the Millions where a borderless state of
Islam is existing in reality.
It seems you are sometimes(such as the above) arguing simply for the
sake of argument.

>>letting authorities and people in charge deal with the
>>situations according to OFFICIAL and KNOWEN laws and regulations is
>>the best and probably the ONLY way.
>

>Ah. Well. This sounds not only authoritarian, but a bit extremist as
>well. There are ALWAYS "other ways" that may also seem reasonable and
>correct to many people.

I said, as you can in ease read, "probably". But can you suggest us
some of those "other ways" for this specific situation, I really know
of NO "other ways".

>
>I guess part of the issue would be: who defines who is an "authority"
>and how do people get put in charge of things? That I don't know.
>

Is this relevant here? If I only had the time, I would have included
every matter and written a one-time perfect posting that you, brother
Jermeiah, will never need to ask any question after..<.,hm..laughing>.

>>>There is a saying in the States that every child learns: "sticks and
>>>stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me".
>>
>>This is YOUR States culture and you are entitled to it. This culture might
>

>Agree. Now then, could it be just possible that you are confusing
>your own cultural background with Islam? If you are born Muslim it is
>much more likely for you to do this than it is for I, a convert.

Before a couple of weeks I met a 37 years old "born Muslim" who had no
idea of how to perform Woudu!! Many born Muslims "discover" Islam, if
ever, only after many years of ignorance, it is for them a similar
experience of that of a convert.
But, If we go on arguing this way; "born Muslims" vs. Converts, then
we might end up adding two new sects to the already shameful large
collection; one for "born Muslims" and other for "converts"!

>For instance, you make strong statements regarding law-making and
>government in a hypothetical Islamic state. But you make no mention
>of shura.

Once again, if I only had the time to write for you the "One-time perfect
post" that also includes details of shoura.
I am an occasional contributor in this newsgroup, in the few posts I
wrote so far and apart from wasting time arguing with confused
missionaries; Shoura, freedom of speech and freedom of belief were my
main topics. Case interested, just try Usenet archives and don't forgot
to tell me what you think.

>I'm just discussing the issue. Not giving fatwas-- you don't find me
>saying things like "this is the ONLY way".... <ahem!>

When I'm totally sure about the absence of any other ways for a certain
matter, then the only thing I can say is "this is the ONLY way". But I'm
willing to listen to those who might have other suggestions, so bring
fort what you have about this aspect and enlighten us.

>That's enough. I'm not even going to read the rest of this post, as
>it seems clear that Seeraj has some other issues to deal with.....

You probably have missed nothing of significance by not reading the rest
of the post. However and just in case you took anything personally, be
assured it was never meant so. We may differ in views but nevertheless
we are, inschallah, brothers belonging to the best Umma that was ever
brought out for the mankind and our different views are maybe a blessing
and yet another sign of the greatness and beauty of the blessing called
ISLAM. So be assured that I have nothing for you but respect and love
for the sake of Allah.


W'assallam

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages