Dialogue between Abul Kasem and Hamza Mohammed continues:

From: Hamza
To: Abul Kasem

 

Kia ora Abul Kassem

This is a great response Abul Kasem. I will ensure you get a comprehensive response. I am more than happy for you to put our exchanges on FFI, and Islam-Watch. I would like to refer you to an interesting website you may be aware of already www.freeminds.org. It challenges, far better than I, many of the precepts of Islam held by Muslims, particularly around the sources of Islam. This organisation, although with the International Qur'anic Centre where I sit on the Board of Advisors, advocates a Qur'anic approach to Islam as a starting point to dealing with Islam. This means de-emphasising the Sunnah. And yes, it is possible. While Al'Qur'an commands Muslims to follow rasulalahi it does not command them to follow him, tthrough a politically created body of law, written and compiled 150 years after he died, which often directly contravenes Al'Qur'an.

And I reiterate my congratulations to you. I have actually helped a number of Muslims leave Islam in New Zealand. As a Muslim, I have a duty to uphold the principle of al'adl, even if it be against Islam or myself. You have made a clear choice. Every man is responsible for himself.

There is a growing network of apostates in NEw Zealand challenging Islam and helping others. Traditional Islam does condemn the murder of apostates. However, there has always been a fundamental misunderstanding about the context of the hadith involved and the historical context of those hadith. The case of apostasy provides a case study to illustrate problems with Muslim adherence to hadith and Sunnah. If Muslims only actually read the body of hadith, they would be disgusted by what they saw. 

I am sorry that you face death threats and troubles. The people who do this are human scum and should be eradicated from the earth. I wish you health safety and happiness, and the freedom to do whatever the hell you want to without the fear of repercussions. 

Islam is the Qur'an. The Sunnah and Muslim adherence to this body of law which quite often contravenes the law is illogical. The Qur'an only approach is far better articulated by Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour www.ahlalquran.org (he is actually Egyptian, sorry for the confusion, and is my colleague) and the Brothers at www.free-minds.org. 

With respect to itjihad. It is an irrefutable fact that scholars which support from all madhab insisted that the gates to itjihad were closed. So what Abul Kasem? Muslims are not powerless in this regard. Al'Quran mandates that Muslims follow Allah and his Messenger(s). Muslims are not forever bound to follow the word of scholars. Its a question of courage.

But interestingly, a number of ulaema (and councils) all over the world are beginning to re-engage itjihad. However, there is an inherent problem with itjihad which people like Irshad Manji never take into consideration: it is not always going to lead to more liberal outcomes. For instance, the Prophet's companions engaged in  itjihadin a number of instances where it actually reduced and restricted human rights even further. So, no itjihad is not the end all and be all of Islamic reform as Manji and Dr Masmoudi tout it to be. 

Of course Islam in Indonesia is rooted on the traditional sources of law. The culture of the Indonesian people has had a positive impact on the practice, while it is widely recognised that there is a significant population which engages and supports terrorism and dhimmitude. 

I will endeavour to give a comprehensive response this week. But in my view, you deal with Islam in absolutes and accept the positivist interpretation of its sources. I do not. I will explore this further in my next communication. Stay well brother.  

Yours sincerely,
Hamza Mohammed

---

 

Abul Kasem's response follows:

Dear Hamza;

Here is my reply to your second e???mail.

You wrote:
This is a great response Abul Kassem. I will ensure you get a comprehensive response. I am more than happy for you to put our exchanges on FFI, and Islam-Watch.

My response:
Thank you for your generous comment on my reply. I am sorry it took me more than a week to respond to your e???mail. I was waiting for your comprehensive response. Since it is yet forthcoming, I decided to proceed. Again, thank you for your ???yes??? to post our missives. I shall post them at an appropriate time.

I visited your recommended web site (www.freeminds.org). This site promotes free thinking and fights against cultist organisations such as Watch Tower. This is good. However, I did not find much criticism of Islam here. Why? I am just wondering. On the other hand, did I miss out? Please enlighten me.

For clarification, I must stress that Islam is a cult???more vicious than Jehovah???s Witness or Jim Jones???s or David Koresh???s cultist groups. Islam is more dangerous than any other cult, past or present. Fighting Islam is not so simple, since this cultist nature of Islam has survived more than a millennium. As written before, many past attempts to reform/reorganise or to tame Islam had been futile. Therefore, if you suppose you can change Islam through reformation, I wish you good luck.

You wrote
This organisation, althoung with the International Qur'anic Center where I sit on the Board of Advisors, advoates a Qur'anic approach to Islam as a starting point to dealing with Islam. This means de-emphasising the Sunnah. And yes, it is possible.

My response:
My suspicion is true. I see that you are a Qur'an???only???Muslim (QOM). In my last e???mail I wrote about the fate of Rashad Khalifa, the founder of this brand of Islam. Better known as ???Submitters???, this newest branch of Islam supposes that Islam can be purified by discarding Sunnah, Sharia and ahadith. I must tell you this is just a fib. Look, the Qur'an of Rashad Khalifa has in it the name of Rashad inserted in it. Please read the following verses of Rashad Khalifa???s Qur'an (http://www.submission.org/islam/): 25:56, 36:3???4, 42:24. Please note that Rashad Khalifa has removed 9:128???129 from the Qur'an.

Now I would like to have an honest answer from you. Are you a submitter? Yes or no. If yes then do you follow Khalifa???s Qur'an? If no then tell me which Qur'an are you talking about?

You wrote that you are an adviser to the International Qur???anic Centre. This is quite interesting. Please tell us what your organisation proposes to do with the Qur???anic mumbo???jumbos. Pardon me for using the term ???mumbo-jumbo??? for Allah???s words. Do you still consider the Qur'an the words of all mighty Allah? How can you change the eternal words of Allah if you are a true Muslim?

You wrote:
While Al'Qur'an commands Muslims to follow rasulalahi it does not command them to follow him, through a politically created body of law, written and compiled 150 years after he died, which often directly contravenes Al'Qur'an.

My response:

This is amusing. You claim that the Qur'an does not command the Muslims to follow Muhammad. Are you very familiar with the Qur'an? Let us review a few verses where Allah steadfastly commands that Muslims must follow only His last messenger (rasul), Muhammad. Please tell us how your organisation will amend the following verses:

If you love Allah then follow Muhammad and Allah will forgive your sins???3:31
Muhammad is the only person to be obeyed or followed blindly???3:32
Obeying Allah and Muhammad (i.e., his examples) is mandatory???3:132
Whoever obeys Allah and Muhammad is guaranteed Paradise???4:13
Obeying Muhammad is obeying Allah???4:80
Muslims must follow only what has been revealed to Muhammad???5:48
Rejecting Muhammad is rejecting Allah???s revelations (Qur???an)???6:33
Provisions (rules and examples) set by Allah and Muhammad is binding to all Muslims: there are no alternatives???33:36
Allah has made Muhammad an excellent example for the believers to follow???33:21
Obeying Allah and the apostle (Muhammad) is the highest achievement???33:71
The believers must obey Allah and Muhammad lest Allah nullifies their works???47:33
Pledging allegiance to Muhammad is pledging allegiance to Allah???48:10
Allah has prepared a blazing fire for those who reject Allah and his apostle Muhammad...48:13
Islam means submission or surrender; the believers must submit to Allah and Muhammad???49:14
Those who reject Allah and His messenger (Muhammad) will be reduced to dust...58:5

Mr Hamza, those were just a few sample of verses from the Qur'an. Similar verses litter the Qur'an from the beginning to the end. What do you think Muslims should do about those verses, should you reform the Qur'an? Are you going to remove those verses? Are you going to amend those verses, like Rashad Khalifa, who did just this and paid by his life?

Mr Hamza, you assert that Muslims must follow only the Qur'an and nothing else. Please tell us how do you plan to implement the provisions of 9:5 and 9:29 which call for the gratuitous murder of non???Muslims? Should not Muslims, as per the instruction set in similar verses, enforce the provision of the Qur'an? Please provide an honest answer. We are not talking of sharia, which, you believe is man???made. Here, we are dealing with the immutable verses directly emanating from Allah in His Qur'an. Please do this for verse 9:111???112 where Allah binds all Muslims with the pledge that they must join in jihad to kill the non???Muslims or be killed. In return, Allah has guaranteed them much booty and exquisite abodes in paradise. This is a business contract of Allah with Muslims. Should Muslims fulfil such a contract as stipulated in the Qur'an? Please give a yes or no answer, without hiding under the smokescreen of context and translation problem. All these verses are very clear and unambiguous. They have no expiry date, nor any contextual references.

You wrote:
And I reiterate my congratulations to you. I have actually helped a number of Muslims leave Islam in New Zealand. As a Muslim, I have a duty to uphold the principle of al'adl, even if it be against Islam or myself. You have made a clear choice. Every man is responsible for himself.

My response:
I thank you for your concern about my safety. Mr Hamza, it is good to be prudent and precise about what you write. You wrote that you have helped a number of Muslims to leave Islam in New Zealand. You even assert that, as a true Muslim, you have a duty to help Muslims leave Islam. Are you joking, Mr Hamza? Did you help Muslims leave Islam? Is it not the duty of all Muslims to bring as many non-Muslims to Islam as it is possible on your part? By helping some Muslims leave Islam, have you not committed a crime against the very religion you have converted to? 
 
To defend your grossly un???Islamic act you call your action the principle of al???adl. Sorry Mr Hamza, I do not really get it. Would you kindly explain to the readers what this principle al???adl is?

Since you have so much trust in the Qur'an please show us where in the Qur'an it says that a Muslim will remain a Muslim even when he helps other Muslims to abandon Islam. You have really amazed every Muslim on earth.

Mr Hamza, you are dead wrong on this, I must tell you. You see, as a Muslim, you are duty bound to Allah to attract, proselytise, and convert to Islam as many infidels as you can. Allah has promised a great reward for such activities. Show this e???mail to any Islamist scholars and they will confirm of what I have written. In Islamic parlance this activity is called Dawa. As a neo???Islamist it is your duty to be involved in Dawa activities.

Contrast this with what you are doing???helping Muslims to leave Islam! In the language of Islam you are a betrayer, a hypocrite, and a plain defector. The Islamic punishment for such effrontery is beheading. Please tell us how are you going to change such rules of Islam?

You wrote:
Islam is the Qur'an. The Sunnah and Muslim adherence to this body of law which quite often contravenes the law is illogical. The Qur'an only approach is far better articulated by Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour www.ahlalquran.org (he is actually Egyptian, sorry for the confusion, and is my colleague) and the Brothers at www.free-minds.org.

My response:
Qur???an is the primary source of Islam???you are completely correct on this. You seem to assume that the Qur'an is good and the Sunnah is bad. Therefore, if Muslims discard Sunnah and stick to the Qur'an then Islam will look good, purified.

Okay, so how about those murderous verses in the Qur'an I already mentioned? How about the many barbaric legal provisions in the Qur'an? How about those inhuman, uncivilised, cruel, and grossly unjust verses? How about the verses which call the non???Muslims criminals, liars, blind, deaf, dogs, and creatures worse than animals? How about those misogynist verses which permit Muslim men to beat their wives, treat them as sexual objects, and discard them when they do not need them. How about the polygamous verses extolling multiple wives for Muslim men? Do you think these verses are fair? Are they still valid? Please tell us how you consider the Qur'an good when such verses remain the cardinal messages of Islam.

I do not know much about Ahmed Subhy Mansour. He appears to be a QOM. Frankly, the case of QOM is hopeless. In the eyes of Islam, they are not Muslims, in the first place. They have no authority to talk about Islam. At worst, they are Islamic heretics and therefore, liable to Islamic punitive measures. I have encountered many such QOM, and I found them to be confused, lost, and aimless followers of Islam who dislike the current version of Islam but have no guts to kick Islam out of their lives. They simply hope against hope that Islam will be pristine if only the Qur'an is upheld.

Mr Hamza, please do not delude yourself. If you are helping many New Zealand Muslims to abandon Islam, why do you not discard Islam yourself? Why are you still clinging to it? Why do you still suppose that QOM will reform Islam and Islam will become civilised?

You wrote:
With respect to itjihad. It is an irrefutable fact that scholars which support from all madhab insisted that the gates to itjihad were closed. So what Abul Kasem? Muslims are not powerless in this regard. Al'Quran mandates that Muslims follow Allah and his Messenger(s). Muslims are not forever bound to follow the word of scholars. Its a question of courage.

My response:
I am glad that you agree with me that the gates of ijtihad is closed. However, you still believe that Muslims may follow other messengers. Your impression is that Muslims are allowed to follow Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Jesus, and all other prophets which the Qur'an mentions.

Mr Hamza, you are dead wrong on this. Even though the Qur'an alludes to these prophets and messengers as examples that they preached Allah???s message, the Qur'an sternly commands Muslims that the only messenger the Muslims must follow is Muhammad. I have already cited a number of verses on this. Now, please show us few verses from the Qur'an where Allah has allowed Muslims to follow other messengers besides Muhammad.

You wrote:
But interestingly, a number of ulaema (and councils) all over the world are beginning to re-engage itjihad. However, there is an inherent problem with itjihad which people like Irshad Manji never take into consideration: it is not always going to lead to more liberal outcomes. For instance, the Prophet's companions engaged in  itjihadin a number of instances where it actually reduced and restricted human rights even further. So, no itjihad is not the end all and be all of Islamic reform as Manji and Dr Masmoudi tout it to be.  

My response:

On ijtihad, please refer to my answer above. I wish Irshad Manji and other neo???Mutazillites good luck for their effort. Only history will tell their successes or failures.

Please show proof that Muhammad had engaged in ijtihad with his companions. The Qur'an clearly says that Muhammad???s words are final words on all matters; there can be no arguments on this. This is because Allah says that Muhammad???s words are His words (see verse quoted above). Once Muhammad had decided on any matter, it is final and eternal. No power on earth may amend such a decision. Please show us where in the Qur'an it says that Muslims are free to amend Muhammad???s rulings.

You wrote:
Of course Islam in Indonesia is rooted on the traditional sources of law. The culture of the Indonesian people has had a positive impact on the practice, while it is widely recognised that there is a significant population which engages and supports terrorism and dhimmitude.

My response:
I shall go one step further and say that it is Islam which has corrupted the rich and colourful traditions and customs of the Indonesian people. Look around ancient Indonesia and what do you notice????Complete annihilation of a superbly rich culture. It was all because of Islam. The same is true for India, Persia, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Islam annihilates the past civilisation and forces upon the indigenous, conquered people, the Bedouin Arab culture, and traditions. This subjugation is so powerful that many such conquered nations discarded their native languages, names, dress, food, traditions, and customs and adopted Arab names, traditions, and customs. When Islam wins civilisation loses. When Islam triumphs culture and tradition dies. It is simply because in Islam, there is only one culture, only one language, only one tradition???the fascistic Arab imperialism disguised as a religion.

You wrote:
I will endeavour to give a comprehensive response this week. But in my view, you deal with Islam in absolutes and accept the positivist interpretation of its sources. I do not. I will explore this further in my next communication. Stay well brother.

My response:

Please do so. I shall wait for your response.

Sincerely,
Abul Kasem

Comments

>>>To Continued in Part 4