Islam Watch - "Addressing challenges of Mr. Raihan" by Mumin Salih

Who is Raihan?
According to the information I have received from some Bangladeshi friends, who are contributors to our islam-watch.org website, Mr. Raihan is extremely prolific writer and apparently an incontestable scholar of Islam. The volumes of his writing in vinnomot.com site would prove both points. In a few Bangladeshi community-based websites, he has been throwing scores of challenges on Islam – on the basis of his unprecedented and unique way of understanding Islam based on 'Koran is all about Islam' thesis. Those, who sought to address his challenges, including Abul Kasem, Muhammad Asghar, Syed Kamran Mirza, Alamgir Hussain etc., got beaten black and blue by Mr. Raihan. Even great Ali Sina of FFI, my greatest mentor, apparently chickened out to his challenges, as has been claimed by Mr. Raihan. Such a great and unique scholar of Islam and challenger the great deserves better recognition. Through taking up his challenges, I am hopefully helping his reputation recieve deserving recognition.

Against much discouragement by a few friends of islam-watch.org, who are also writers of vinnomot.com (VM), mukto-mona.com (MM) and News from Bangladesh (NFB) websites, I sought to address the challenges of Mr. Raihan. The reason I was discouraged is because Mr. Raihan doesn’t give any leeway to logic and reasons, as I was told. Yet, my following of him for the last few weeks, quite validated such a judgment. It also gave me an impression that he is utterly ignorant in the knowledge of Islam and yet shockingly, he keeps throwing challenges at the opponents. Even then, I decided to take on to his challenges – not thinking that I will win this debate but to air some of my views that I felt to itchy to express.

I will first describe my encounter with Mr. Raihan and then address some major points of his challenges. I was going through some of his old posts over the last few weeks to make a grasp of his arguments. Please excuse me that I could not follow some of the points he wrote in Bangla. I will address those points he wrote in English. I will also address some of the points written in Bangla that were explained to me by a couple Bangladeshi readers of VM/MM/NFB.

My encounter with Raihan: Mr. Raihan’s writings came to my notice when a friend of my website (islam-watch.org) forwarded an article of mine on Apostasy to Vinnomot and Mukto-mona websites ~2 months ago. Mr. Raihan quickly posted a comment on the same topic (Apostasy in Islam), indirectly pointing to my article after my post appeared on these websites. After I was alerted to Mr. Raihan’s retort by a regular member of VM & MM, I invited Mr. Raihan to discuss the issue further. Here are the exchanges:

I wrote:

Dear Mr. Raihan, I noticed that my article on apostasy was forwarded by some well-wishers to Mukto-mona and vinnomot forums and you wrote a comment on the topic which rightly point to the lacuna in my essay. Your points are worth considering but yet more discussion is needed to arrive any conclusion.

I am willing to debate in civil manner. But I do not follow those sites regularly and I do not have time to spend on various forum. Forum discussions also get lost soon after.

I invite you to our website for a fruitful discussion. You may wish to forward those discussions to Mukto-mona and vinnomot sites later. Hoping for a constructive and harmonious exchange with you on I-W site.
-------------

Raihan replied:

Dear Mr. M.A. Khan, Many thanks for your personal mail and invitation. For your information, I am not a debater and I didn't write my article based on your one either. It was a general comment from my point of view. I might be wrong as well.

With due respect, I do not wish to debate with anybody personally as it may end up with a bad relation, that I don't want. Moreover, I do not wish to publish our personal correspondence in any forum including yours one. I usually do not mention anybody's name in my write-up, unless it is really necessary.

Having said that, I am giving my two small write-ups on apostasy issue at the end of this mail. And this is just for our personal communication. Please do not publish our personal mail anywhere.

---------------
I concluded:

Dear Mr. Raihan, Sorry, I cannot afford to get in one-on-one exchanges with you as I have very little time. If I spend any time on communicating with you which other people cannot read and benefit from, it becomes a waste of time on my part. There are thousands of Mullahs & their apologists (modern Muslims, Western gullibles) to write for Islamist cause but in our camp, there are only few.

Having said that, I will not be engaging with you in email exchanges, any further.

I had thought that was it; but not to be. Despite my expressed no further interest to communicate with him, he wrote 2 emails to me containing some loaded rubbish, which later appeared in VM, MM and NFB websites. (Is Qur'an Responsible for ALL Sorts of Violence?, April 12; Islam is an Individualistic Religion, April 25). This is how he started his last email to me:

Dear Mr. M.A. Khan:
Islam is an individualistic religion. According to Islam, each and every person will be responsible for his/her own deeds and actions. There are several verses that support this view. However, at this moment I can only remember one of them. I think this is enough. You can take a look.

17.15. YUSUFALI: Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another…..

Naturally, I ignored his emails as we agreed not communicate any further. However, he posted a comment in VM within 24 hours accusing me of not responding to his emails or publishing them in my website (Because, Mr. Ali Sina says so!, April 18), which says:

Dear All, Do you know why some people always try to point their finger to the Qur'an for ALL sorts of terrorism, extremism, violence, zealot Mullaism, hatred, etc; with NO good reason?

Here is the Answer! Because, Mr. Ali Sina says so!

"Qur'an: The source of hate, violence and Islamic terrorism." - Ali Sina

Sounds like some people are sheepishly following Ali Sina! No wonder, they are deceiving their Nature/God given brain!

However, the FACT is revealed throw my challenge!

Do you want to know more? Well, both Mr. Ali Sina [FFI site] and Mr. M.A. Khan [Islam Watch site] have neither published nor responded my write-up! What they are afraid of? FACT? Who knows!

Readers please notice the highlighted in pink section where Raihan accuses me of not responding to his emails, nor publishing his comments on my website. Readers should consider his accusations against me considering his own request earlier:

[Raihan: With due respect, I do not wish to debate with anybody personally as it may end up with a bad relation, that I don't want. Moreover, I do not wish to publish our personal correspondence in any forum including yours one. I usually do not mention anybody's name in my write-up, unless it is really necessary.

Having said that, I am giving my two small write-ups on apostasy issue at the end of this mail. And this is just for our personal communication. Please do not publish our personal mail anywhere.]

I did not respond to his request because I had already written to him that I was not going to engage with him in personal communication any further. If he were a decent person, he should not have pestered me further on the same topic. Obviously decency doesn’t seem to have anything to do with his personal attributes.

The most astonishing fact is that he accused me of not publishing his comments on my website. How can I publish his communication when he earnestly pleaded with me not to publish anything from him (Raihan: I do not wish to publish our personal correspondence in any forum including yours one. … Please do not publish our personal mail anywhere]? The readers should now have a clear-cut idea of this sheepish, dishonest and indecent challenger the great – who is only interested in character assassination and name-calling of opponents in his utterance of idiotic nonsense and ignorance.

This gives ample evidence of Mr. Raihan’s dishonest character. Not only that, I was surprised by the fact that he wanted an immediate response from me. How else, he could accuse me of not responding to or publishing his comments within 24 hours in VM website? It’s as if I am his slave – I must respond and do that within hours. And this was only expected from fanatic follower of Allah/Koran (Koran-only-Muslim, KoM). Ultimate message of the Koran is unconditional submission of human earthlings: Jews, Christians, Idolaters, non-theists. If not sword is your destiny (verses could be made available on request). Raihan’s attitude represents exactly that desire of Allah. Truly a true follower of the author of the Koran!

Now I will turn to address his challenges. After this encounter, I started reading Mr. Raihan’s recent articles, comments and posts in MM and VM websites over the last few months to make a grasp of his ideas and views before I could take on his challenges. I will start with his arguments on apostasy – the topic which lead to my encounter with him.

Let me start with a post, LEAVING ISLAM (AR-RIDA), which Mr. Raihan had forwarded to VM and MM a few days before my article on Apostasy appeared in these forums. This article lists the following verses in an attempt to nullify the provision death for apostasy in Islam:

If Mr. Raihan believes that these verses nullify provision of punishment for apostasy, then it will show his utter ignorance or inability to understand the content of Koran. Verse Q 2:256 has nothing to do with apostasy (leaving Islam) which simply point to those people who did not accept Islam, that is, Muhammad’s messages. Second verse [Q9:84] also does not have any relation with apostasy. This verse was revealed from when Muhammad queried to Allah if he could pray for his uncle Abu Talib, who despite whole-heartedly supporting Muhammad, did not accept Islam and died a pagan. Although Mr. Raihan does not believe in Hadiths, yet for the sake of making the background for this verse more clear I cite the following Hadith:

When Abu Talib was on his death bed, Allah's Apostle came to him and found with him, Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin Al-Mughira. Allah's Apostle said, "O uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, a sentence with which I will defend you before Allah." On that Abu Jahl and 'Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said to Abu Talib, "Will you now leave the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib?" Allah's Apostle kept on inviting him to say that sentence while the other two kept on repeating their sentence before him till Abu Talib said as the last thing he said to them, "I am on the religion of 'Abdul Muttalib," and refused to say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah. On that Allah's Apostle said, "By Allah, I will keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so." [Bukhari Shariff].

And indeed, Allah forbade Muhammad not once but thrice, revealing 2 more verses about the same time in the same sura (9):

* It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire. [Q 009.113]

* And Abraham prayed for his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most tender-hearted, forbearing. [Q 009.114]

It is utterly astonishing that someone with so little knowledge or understanding of the Koran, keeps throwing challenges one after another to many writers (Abul Kasem, Mohammad Asghar, Syed Kamran Mirza), who, to my guess, have left hardly any worthwhile book on Islam unread.

Not only Mr. Raihan’s utter ignorance would shock the readers, his deceptive tactics would shock them alike. My article on the Afghan Apostate’s Case, which refuted another set of verses (as unrelated to apostasy) that were cited by CAIR’s reaction to the same case, Mr. Raihan quickly shifted gear to different set of verses in a new post [Apostasy in Islam] and the number of verse has now been trimmed down to two. Here’s what he wrote:

It is interesting to note that some people love to escape two MOST important verses (4.137, 9.84) from Qur'an that talk about apostasy in general! Let’s go one-by-one:

According to verse 9.84, a person needs to die naturally. NO way to kill him either!

9.84: Nor do thou ever pray for any of them that dies, nor stand at his grave; for they rejected Allah and His Messenger, and died in a state of perverse rebellion.

According to verse 4.137, a person needs to be constantly alive to jump in and out of belief again and again and over again. NO way to kill him!

4.137: Surely, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe, then disbelieve, then plunge deeper into disbelief, GOD will not forgive them.

It’s not is people’s love to escape the relevant, Mr. Raihan but obviously it is your inability to understand what means what in the Koran. Your deceptive shifting of gear and running from one set of verse to another clearly shows ‘how ignorant you are in the knowledge and understanding of the Koran’.

Yet, I will address the 2 verses - your last resort so far. I have already disproved verse Q9:84, which along with Q9:113-114, were revealed in regard to Abu Talib’s case that has nothing to do with apostasy. Now you only have verse 4:137, which definitely does not address the apostates but the hypocrites which I will explain in detail. Let me quote a section from my apostasy essay which deals with apostasy:

* They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- [Q 4:89]

* Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin [Q 9.66 ].

It is a problem with the Koran, at least in the translations, that terms like hypocrite, dispossessed and apostate have been used in a rather interchangeable or confusing manner. Given the linguistic limitation of that time when languages were much less evolved and hence less powerful in defining various closely related things, such an anomaly is quite reasonable. Hence, slightly careful, but not so difficult, reading and analysis is needed to separate the verses of apostasy from those of hypocrisy. I will first analyze these 2 verses cited by me before analyzing Mr. Raihan’s verse 4:137.

In the verse 9:66, reject faith after you had accepted is most clear way of defining what we call leaving a faith or apostasy. But this verse, which calls ‘we punish others’ – clearly identifying apostasy as a punishable crime would not catch Mr. Raihan’s attention. Is this dishonesty or ignorance or failure to comprehend simple things on part of Mr Raihan?

Mr. Raihan sought to refute my cited verse Q 8:89, which clearly ordered the faithful to kill the apostates, as follows:

4.89: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

If the above two conditions are fulfilled, then the verse says “seize them and slay them wherever ye find them”.

It’s obvious that this verse is NOT talking about the normal state for apostasy! Can we ask ourselves honestly which of the above verses should be applicable for the normal apostates?

Mr. Raihan says, this is an abnormal case of apostasy. I have never heard terms like “abnormal apostasy” or something like that for which someone should be killed. It appears that to Mr. Raihan, “if they turn renegades” – they become abnormal apostate. It’s not only Mr. Raihan’s failure to understand the verses of the Koran but here he also fails to understand simple English. For Mr. Raihan information, a “renegade” means someone who has simply rejected or left a religious, ideological or political group or doctrine. There is nothing abnormal in being a renegade. Every ex-Muslim or apostate is a renegade from Islam. So, the 2 conditions Mr. Raihan invented to suit his deceptive case, (“should ye reject faith” and “turn renegade”) are not different conditions at all. Both stand for the same meaning. In other word, the simplest of apostate fulfills both conditions invented/demanded by Mr. Raihan. All apostates, simple or abnormal, are destined for death in Koran-only-Islam thesis, too. Hadiths are not required at all.

Now turning to Mr. Raihan’s favorite verse 4:137, I have already asserted that this verse points to the hypocrites, that is, the great hypocrite Abdullah ibn Obayi and his associates of Medina. I will come back to Abdullah before analyzing this verse a little. Mr. Raihan asserted that Allah allowed people to believe and disbelieve in Islam as many times as possible. Suppose a case like this: Somebody today says “I believe in Islam”, tomorrow says “I don’t”. Day-after-tomorrow says, “I do believe”, following day says, “I don’t”. And this cycle goes on and on. Can we call that person a rejecter of Islam or apostate at all? At best, we can call that person a half-believer – not an apostate, rejecter or renegade. Best way to define him as a person of fluctuating or deceptive faith – someone, who cannot make his mind and keeps fluctuating between camps. In another word: when he says “I believe”, he probably accepts certain things; but next time when he says, “I don’t”, he probably cannot accept other things of the faith. Such a case cannot fit to be called apostate but best describes a case continual changing of mind, a perfect case of hypocrisy.

And guess: who were those hypocrites? The most well known hypocrite in Islam, who got references even in the Book of Allah, was the powerful leader of the Khazraj tribe, ‘Abdullah – hypocrite the great’ (in Islam). Indeed, all the verse on hypocrisy in the Koran was targeted at this Abdullah who had become a great annoyance to Muhammad. I am quoting a section from an essay in our website to give an introduction of this hypocrite the great from my another essay [readers can learn more details from ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, al-Tabari commentaries/biographies of Muhammad]:

…..Prophet Muhammad came face to face with the hypocrites after migrating to Medina and the leader of this group was Abdullah ibn Obayi. He was chief of the Khazraj clan and was a powerful tribal head. As the Prophet started attacking and evicting the various tribes of Medina, Abdullah decided to profess to Islam and formed alliance with the Prophet. He also started taking part in the Muslims' plundering expeditions (decoity) of nearby communities and highway caravans – a new profession for making a living that started taking root in Medina as the Muslims started growing strong in force. These robbery and raiding expeditions used to bring in lots of easy booty which many Medina tribes could not resist to get a share of. They started professing to Islam to join the Muslim raid and robbery expeditions to get a share of the booty – which sometimes included beautiful women.

Despite Abdullah's joining the Muslim community, he could not shed all his conscience and did not agree with Muhammad's actions in many instances. He became a serious nuisance to Muslims from time to time. Abdullah was a powerful tribal chief and doing harm to him could bring ire of the followers of Abdullah on the fledging Muslim community. Hence, Muhammad had to digest his disobedience and annoyance. When Abdullah's son, who became a devoted Muslim, sought prophet's consent to kill his own father (Abdullah) and bring his head to Muhammad, the latter desisted as it could turn out dangerous for his fledgling Muslim community.

I will cite one instance of the humanity and kindness of this much highlighted and hated hypocrite of Islam. I am quoting a section from an article in our website:

In April 624, on the excuse of a market brawl between a Muslim and Jew man of the Kaynuka tribe, he (the Prophet) besieged the settlements of that tribe – the wealthiest community in the region. After 15 days of siege, the Jewish tribe surrendered. Their men were tied and preparations were made for their summary execution. At this point, Abdullah ibn Obayi, chief of the Khazraj clan, seriously intervened. He urged Muhammad, "By God, would you cut down these 700 men in one morning?" He had further cautioned, "I am a man, circumstances may change!" Muhammad, prudent as always, relented from the slaughtering and instead exiled them to Syria. They were given three days to leave but forbidden to take any implements of their trade. Once the Jews left, Muhammad quickly captured their homes and properties and distributed amongst the Muslims as booty obtained through winning Jihad. According to ibn Ishaq, Muhammad had already approved slaying the Jews before this event and at least one Jew, named Ibn Sunayna was assassinated who happened to had have fallen on the way of a Muslim convert from his own clan.
Yet, more Jew atrocity was to follow. In August 625, Muhammad accused the Jews of the Nadhir tribe of treason because they had commercial dealings with Abu Sufian of Mecca before the battle of Ohud and ordered them to evacuate their settlements and proceed to Syria on pain of death. Abdullah, the hypocrite denounced the treason charge as baseless. Yet, the Jews were evicted and Muhammad took possession of their swords, cuirasses, and helmets along with their homes, firms and lands and distributed amongst the followers.

The verses on hypocrites, all revealed in Medina, points to this man Abdullah. The above instances clearly show that his sense of kindness and humanity stood out amongst the entire Muslim people of Medina in those days. Such a great man is labeled as the greatest hypocrite in Islam because despite professing to Islam, he could not accept blindly whatever Muhammad had said and done because of his sense of kindness, justice and humanity. He is a hypocrite because he didn't show blind belief in Islam like his own son. He was a man of wavering/fluctuating commitment/faith in Islam; that's why he was a hypocrite.”

With this, I rest my case on Mr. Raihan’s challenge on Apostasy in Islam. Some members of VM/MM, including Abul Kasem and Syed Mirza has discouraged me from taking on Mr. Raihan’s challenge because he is the only one in the world, who apparently have understood the Koran and Islam perfectly. My following of his recent posts in various forums doesn’t say otherwise. I am sure Mr. Raihans will have another set of verse or some other means to refute or rubbish my arguments. He would probably find all the profanity to label me with, which he has applied to other, who tried to address his challenges. So be it! But I let the readers to be the judge.