In response to Part 1 of this series, Hamza Mohammed the convert has sent the following letter. Abul Kasem's response followed it:

From: Hamza
To: Abul Kasem

I respect your decision to leave Islam. I would fight for you to defend your right to do so. 

I've lived in Egypt, Sudan, Palestine and am now working as an advisor to the UN in Jakarta. I have studied at Al-Azhar and Beir Zeit.  The bottom line is this, Islam can be whatever Muslims make it to be. They are only constrained by the words of ulema who have relied on man made tools and rejected principles like itjihad. 

You wrote: 

"Living in democratic societies such as USA or New Zealand, it is quite fashionable to criticise and yearn for a reformation in Islamic laws (Sharia) and hoping that somewhere there is a good brand of Islam. Most of these reformers think that Islam is similar to Christianity, Hinduism..., reformable".  

Well, I’m not that gullible or stupid. Islam is not Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. Islam is capable of reformation, because more than half of the doctrines and texts have been created by men. Islam as we know it, is more than Al'Qur'an it is Sunnah and usul al fiqh, which has changed very little because scholars thought it would be a good idea to prevent bid'a by allowing itjihad to continue. I never said there was a good brand of Islam. One is capable of emerging however. Open your eyes. While you may criticise countries like Indonesia, there are broad based reform efforts at high levels currently taking place which address many of Islam's core problems, particularly around respect for human rights. Tell, scholars like Ahmed Mansour that Islam is irreformable. He has already demonstrated how it is. 

I never said that what you wrote didnt occur, or were not accepted by some ulema. Of course they are. Islam has been misguided for 1400 years. Islams problems didnt commence with wahabbism or the way of the salaf. Islam is problematic in every sect from Sufi to Shia. I argue however, and others would as well, that the legal methods of decision making are wrong in their methodology. The positivist and black letter approach to Islam is partially to blame. A new tafsir which de-emphasises literalism, through contextual analysis, would be tremendously helpful. 

Your wrote:

"All most all the reformers you have mentioned live and work in infidel lands. If they are really serious about reforming Islam they should go to the Islamic lands and practice what they preach. I would be interested in knowing what fate awaits them there". The same fate as Mohammed Taha, Kassim Ahmed and Farog Foda. So what is your point? That reformers face an uphill battle? Really, I had no idea. 

Islam will be whatever Muslims want to make it. The tools are there for us to change. Takfir is a big reason why we are so afraid. But many Muslims are beginning to break this mold. But its not enough. Muslims need to develop a project approach to Islam and reform, it has to be systematic and realistic. 

I consider many Islam practices barbaric. I'm not sure where to begin, but here is a small sampling: 

Islam's criminal procedure laws which prevent women from effectively laying a complaint for rape based on teh fact that four witnesses are required

The dhimmi laws

The killing of "apostates"

The abject mistreatment of women in Islam

The acceptance of paedophilia in Islam based on Sunnah

The understanding that contact with non-Muslims is najis

The enforcement of hudood

Islam's good practices?

Rituals, ie, zakat, salat, etc.

Belief that racism is inherently wrong 

Defensive jihad to pursue al'adl. However I cant think of any real examples of this.

Islam has not been misunderstood by non-Muslims, but by Muslims. Muslims have an obligation to fight for Islam, and eradicate its problems. What are your views on the St Petersburg Declaration? I know a great deal of Muslims, devout Muslims who support its principles. 

I have to get back to work, but your questions warrant better and more comprehensive responses. I admire what you are doing, I have actually referred Muslims who wish to leave Islam to your site and Faith Freedom. You are doing a great service.  

I hope to discuss this with you further. 

Yours sincerely

Hamza Mohammed

---

 

Abul Kasem's reply:

Dear Hamza;

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am sorry that it has taken me a few days to write back. As promised, here are the details of my opinions.

You wrote:
I respect your decision to leave Islam. I would fight for you to defend your right to do so.

My response:
Thank you. Unfortunately, Islam calls for the murder of apostates. For this reason, I have to resort to a pen name, hide my whereabouts, and remain secret, just to save my life, so that the Islamist killers do not track me down and kill me a la jihadi style. Evidently, you are not a true Muslim. A true Muslim, can never congratulate a deserter of Islam.

Hamza, do you realise that by congratulating an apostate like me you also have become an apostate/hypocrite? You committed a grave Islamic crime when you declared that you are ready to fight for me to protect my right to apostasy. The Qur'an emphatically says that whoever associates himself with an unbeliever, he himself becomes a non‑Muslim. You are simply lucky to be alive because you live in an infidel land (New Zealand).

You wrote:
I've lived in Egypt, Sudan, Palestine and am now working as an advisor to the UN in Jakarta. I have studied at Al-Azhar and Beir Zeit.  The bottom line is this, Islam can be whatever Muslims make it to be. They are only constrained by the words of ulaema who have  relied on man made tools and rejected principles like itjihad.

My response:
It is good to learn that you have spent some time in a few Islamic societies. Mind you, most Muslims are hopelessly unaware of the draconian provisions of Allah’s laws (Sharia). I am certain you had met very nice, amicable, friendly, and kind people in those countries. What made them good is not Islam. It was the absence of real Islam in them which has made them good people. They are good human beings, but not good Muslims. That was why you liked them. You will not like a true Muslim. He is duty bound by Allah to kill infidels and apostates. Allah has a contract with such true believers (9:111‑112).

Although you did not mention what was your field of study at Al‑Azhar, I assume it must have been Islam. This means you must be fully aware of what Islam is all about. You claim that Islam can be whatever a Muslim makes it to be and that the Ulamas have made Islam perfidious.

Mr Hamza, I must disagree with you on this matter. You see, Islam is not what you, Ulamas, or any Muslims construe it to be. Islam is what is contained in the Qur'an, Sunna, Sirah and Sharia. Prove me wrong, if you still believe that real Islam’s fount is not the four sources I just mentioned.

Real Islam is not what you think Islam should be. Real Islam is what Muhammad preached, practiced and enforced. Prove me wrong here too.

So, you see, Hamza, if you are not following the contents of those four sources and if you are not imitating the actions and deeds of Muhammad you are not a Muslim in the first place; you are at best a wishy‑washy Muslim, a sinner, or an apostate/hypocrite, at worst. The Qur'an says clearly that Muhammad's actions are Allah’s actions and every Muslim is duty bound to follow Muhammad's example. Do otherwise, and you become an infidel.

You wrote:
Well, Im not that gullible or stupid. Islam is not Christianity Judaism or any other religion. Islam is capable of reformation, because more than half of the doctrines and texts have been created by men. Islam as we know it, is more than Al'Qur'an it is Sunnah and usul al fiqh, which has changed very little because scholars thought it would be a good idea to prevent bid'a by allowing itjihad to continue

My response:
Thanks for agreeing with me that Islam is not like just another religion. Your claim that half of Islamic doctrines have been created by men is simply astounding. I assume you are saying that half of the Qur'an, Sunna, ahadith, Sharia are man‑made. I agree with you on this except that it is not half, it is full, one-hundred per cent of these scriptures are man‑made. Allah never wrote that Qur'an, He had never sent Muhammad as His messenger and He made no Sharia laws. Period!

Having said this, I must tell you that as per Islamic law, what you wrote about fifty percent of Islamic texts being forged or man‑made, is complete blasphemy. In many Islamic countries you are liable to be prosecuted for uttering such insolent words and if found guilty might be sentenced to jail or even executed. So be mindful of what you say. If you are a true Muslim, you must not utter those few words.

You wrote about ijtihad. I must write that you are yet to learn much about Islam and its history of persecution of the dissenters. Ever since Ghazali, the path to ijtihad has been completely closed, forever. There is no way Islam can be reformed or modified. Islam, for eternity, is fossilised in the seventh century Bedouin Arab customs and religious laws. No one can ever think of changing Islam. Those who dare to think of reforming Islam usually do this from the safety of infidel lands. This is a dream, which I am not sure will ever come true.

You wrote:
I never said there was a good brand of Islam. One is capable of emerging however. Open your eyes. While you may criticise countries like Indonesia, there are broad based reform efforts at high levels currently taking place which address many of Islam's core problems, particularly around respect for human rights. Tell scholars like Ahmed Mansour that Islam is irreformable. He has already demonstrated how it is.

My response:
It is good to learn that you realise there is no ‘good’ Islam. I would like to move one step further and say that entire Islam is bad, rotten, pugnacious, and acrid.

You mention that an Indonesian Islamic scholar, Ahmed Mansour is reforming Islam there. I am curious to learn about his activities. How does he want to reform the Qur'an and Sunna? It will be quite interesting to learn from him.

Now, please tell me what are the foundations of Islamic laws in Indonesia? Are they not based, one‑hundred percent of them, on the Qur'an, Sunna, Ahadith, and the eternal Sharia, the four core scriptures of Islam I mentioned earlier? This being the case, how could Indonesia reform Islam without reforming these four basic sources of Islam? To reform Islam means, broadly speaking, to reform the Qur'an. Precisely, in the first place, this means editing or re‑writing the Qur'an or to abandon it. One cannot simply pick and choose from Qur'an. How are you going to deal with the rules of abrogation? How is this possible, Hamza? Please enlighten me on this. How could one think of modifying Islam without modifying these Islamic sources? Who dare to modify the Qur'an and hadis?

The bottom line is: it is just a wishful thinking that Islam can be changed without changing the fundamental sources of Islam. The latest victim of this innovation is the poor Rashad Khalifa. He invented a new brand of Islam—Islam minus Ahadith, the Qur'an‑only‑Muslims. He paid dearly for his insolence. He was assassinated by the jihadists for having the gall to challenge the age‑old, true, pristine Islam. Rashad Khalifa thought that the putrid smell of Islam emanates from the Ahadith. He discarded all hadith, insisting that Islam is only what the Qur'an says. He even had the impudence to slightly modify the Qur'an, inserting his names in a few places.

So what do these examples teach us? Please do think this over,

You wrote:
I never said that what you wrote didnt occur, or were not accepted by some ulema. Of course they are. Islam has been misguided for 1400 years. Islams problems didnt commence with wahabbism or the way of the salaf. Islam is problematic in every sect from Sufi to Shia. I argue however, and others would as well, that the legal methods of decision-making are wrong in their methodology. The positivist and black letter approach to Islam is partially to blame. A new tafsir which de-emphasises literalism, through contextual analysis, would be tremednously helpful.

My response:
Why is it that Islam has been misguided for 1400 years? Did you ever ponder on this, Hamza? Why, since its inception, Islam has been deeply fossilised in the desert of seventh century Arabia? While other religions/faith have been constantly evolving, modifying and adapting to the time, why is it that there is no change in Islam?

Again, the answer is quite simple—Islam is fossilised because the Qur'an and all other sources of Islam are fossilised. Once these core scriptures are changed or ignored, Islam will change, believe me. Of course, the new Islam will be no Islam at all. It will be man‑made‑Islam. It will not resemble the Islam of Muhammad/Allah but the Islam of human being. Except for the word ‘Islam’, there will be noting left of the ‘real’ Islam. This will be similar to the reformations of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism…and so on.

The question is: who is to bell the cat? Who dare to abandon or modify those sources of Islam?

I wrote:
"All most all the reformers you have mentioned live and work in infidel lands. If they are really serious about reforming Islam they should go to the Islamic lands and practice what they preach. I would be interested in knowing what fate awaits them there".

Your reply:
The same fate as Mohammed Taha, Kassim Ahmed and Farog Foda. So what is your point? That reformers face an uphill battle? Really, I had no idea.

My response:
Here is what happened to some of those reformists of Islam:

Mohammed Taha: He was executed by the then Sudanese president Gaafar al‑Nimery for advocating a liberal view of Islam. According to the Islamist rulers of Sudan, Mohammed Taha was a heretic, an apostate, and therefore, deserving the death penalty.

Farog Foda: The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt murdered him for his reformist views on Islam.

Kassim Ahmed: Strictly speaking, he is a Malay novelist, not an Islamist reformist. He lives in Malaysia. I do not think he is a serious reformer of Islam. He is still alive.

So you see, Hamza, the price one pays to reform Islam is truly terrible. Even then, having paid such a high price for liberating Islam from the Bedouin soil of 1400 years ago, nothing has changed in Islam.

You wrote:
Islam will be whatever Muslims want to make it. The tools are there for us to change. Takfir is a big reason why we are so afraid. But many Muslims are beginning to break this mold. But its not enough. Muslims need to develop a project approach to Islam and reform, it has to be systematic and realistic.

My response:
Are you really serious, Hamza? Have not you read the Qur'an? What does it say? Read verses 6:115, 7:156‑157, 10:15, 10:64, 18:27, 27:6, 33:45.

These verses, tell us unambiguously that the Qur'an is from Allah, none, even Muhammad, can change the words in it. This is the only book the Muslims must recite, understand and enforce in totality.

Therefore, how is it possible that Islam could be whatever the Muslims want it to be? Do you mean the Muslims must compile a new Qur'an? You mentioned that the tools are there. Please tell us what those tools are and how Muslims can successfully use those tools to write a new Qur'an. You also mentioned a project‑approach in reforming Islam. I am really confused. Please do enlighten me on this.

You wrote:
I consider many Islam practices barbaric. I'm not sure where to begin, but here is a small sampling:

Islam's criminal procedure laws which prevent women from effectively laying a complaint for rape based on teh fact that four witnesses are required
The dhimmi laws
The killing of "apostates"
The abject mistreatment of women in Islam
The acceptance of paedophilia in Islam based on Sunnah
The understanding that contact with non-Muslims is najis
The enfocement of hudood

My response:
Thank you so much. I must admire your honesty in identifying the barbarism inherent in Islam. Islam is barbaric. It is not compatible with a civilised society. You have admitted this candidly, because you are still a human being. Even though you have converted to this barbaric faith, you have not yet become a true Muslim. I must congratulate you on this.

You wrote:
Islam's good practices?
Rituals, ie zakat, salat, et al.
Belief that racism is inherently wrong
Defensive jihad to pursue al'adl. However I cant think of any real examples of this.

My response:
What you consider as Islamic good practices is not Islamic at all. Such rituals, as five daily‑prayers, zakat are not Islamic, to begin with.

For example, the system of five prayers is from the desert Christian monks of Arabia. You will find more information on this in the book: The Foundations of Islam by Benjamin Walker.

So is the case with zakat. Zakat was an old custom of the pagan Arabs. They used to collect money from the residents of Mecca to assist the pilgrims. Even the eminent tafsir writer ibn Kathir admits that zakat was a pagan practice which Muhammad readily adopted for his new religion.

In verse 41:7 Allah cursed those Meccans who refused to pay zakat. This verse was revealed in Mecca, when Muhammad has not yet institutionalised the zakat system. In fact, Muhammad established this pagan practice after migrating to Medina. To remove the problem, ibn Kathir writes:

…”because the obligation of Zakah was instituted during the second year after the Hijrah to Al-Madinah, according to what is stated by several scholars. Yet this Ayah was revealed in Makkah. However it is not unlikely that the principle of giving charity and Zakat was already in place and had been enjoined at the beginning of the Prophet's mission”—ibn Kathir.

So you see, there is nothing Islamic in Islamic prayers and zakat. Muhammad simply borrowed from the infidels those age‑old customs and passed them as Islam.

You tend to believe that there is no racism in Islam. You must be quite unaware that Islam is basically Arab racism—a deceptive ploy to establish Arab imperialism around the globe. To learn about Arab racism and Arab bigotry I would like you to read my essay Bismi Allah (In the name of Allah), part 7 (Allah’s Countenance) and part 8 (Allah is Dictatorial, Racist and Misogynist). In essence, this elaborate essay demonstrates that:

Allah is a white Arab supremacist.

Allah made the white Quraysh Arabs the best of His creation.

Allah is a white supremacist; He does not like black faces; He likes white faces.

Allah had created Muhammad to be the best of His creations.

Allah accepts only Islam as His religion; other religions are invalid

Sunnah (Muhammad’s words and actions) is from Allah.

Arabs are the chosen people of Allah; Allah resembles an Arab.

Allah speaks Hebrew.

Please comment on the above Islamic assertions. You may read the above essays at http://islam-watch.org/AbulKasem

You wrote:
Islam has not been misunderstood by non-Muslims, but by Muslims. Muslims have an obligation to fight for Islam, and eradicate its problems.

My response:
Please tell me what do the non‑Muslims think of Islam—a religion of peace and moderation, perhaps? This is simply hilarious. They have not read the Qur'an, and have not experienced Islam. They simply gulp whatever the Islamist apologists offer them. Much of what these Islamist apologists write/tell are simply artificially sweetened version of Islam, if not utter lies and deception—the Islamic techniques known as Taqiyya and Kitman. Please tell me where in the world can we find this non‑Muslim version of Islam? Please tell me why, in all the Islamic Paradises, their Islamic laws comply one hundred per cent with the Qur'an, Sunna and Sirah? Here I am not talking about the Ulamas, distorting the pristine, peaceful, merciful, and kind Islam. I am alluding to the state laws (Sharia) passed by the elected Islamic members of the Majlis (Islamic Parliament). Do you mean these impeccably qualified Islamist jurists are wrong?, they do not understand Islam?

If these Islamist law‑makers do not understand Islam, who understands Islam, please tell me.

You wrote:
What are your views on the St Petersburg Declaration? I know a great deal of Muslims, devout Muslims who support its principles.

My response:
It is heartening to note that a few Muslims, having been exposed to the ‘real’ Islam, are now yearning for a change. This is certainly good. I wish best for them.

Having said this, I must emphasize that nothing will be achieved as long as the Qur'an is there and the Muslims seek guidance from it. To reform Islam, the reformist Muslims must abandon the Qur'an, Hadis, Sunna and Sharia—the works, all of them.

Any way, the St Petersburg Declaration will remain as a milestone in history. Its success will depend on how many Muslims are prepared to do what I wrote previously.

I must congratulate the signatories of this historic declaration. I came learn that a few of these intrepid fighters received death threats (phone calls) from the Islamist jihadists. Their staid stand, despite this mortal threat, is really admirable.

Sincerely,

Abul Kasem

Comments

>>>To Continued in Part 3