I was recently tagged on a Facebook post discussing Ahmadiyya Muslims in the USA, in the world generally and relations between Ahmadiyya Muslims and other Muslims. This post is me chiming in, as I don’t believe Ahmadiyya Muslims were fairly characterized.
I encourage you to read the full post. I will quote excerpts that I found slightly contentious and respond with my thoughts interspersed. Note that my intention is not to come across hostile. I appreciate some of the nice things that the post’s author Ibrahim Hindy, did say.
The post by Ibrahim Hindy is commentary on a post by Aman Ali, which I have embedded below:
Remember that I was a born Ahmadi Muslim. Devout for many years. Then I questioned and left (both Ahmadiyyat specifically and Islam generally). Where I feel justified in making a critique on Ahmadiyyat, I do.
My own goals here are to call a spade a spade, even if my “side” looks bad. I want all of us to be fair in our critique and accept others when they make a valid point or correction.
Here’s Ibrahim’s third point:
3. But the idea that the Ahmadiyya community has always fought for everyone’s rights is simply not true. In fact, the Ahmadiyya community has routinely been used as a prop to justify systemic bigotry against the Muslim community.
For example:
Two or three days after the #QuebecMassacre, CIJA (Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs) held a cocktail party with MP’s to lobby them in voting against #M103, the motion condemning Islamophobia.
To justify this, CIJA publicly noted that they had to defend the right of the Ahmadiyya community to criticize mainstream Islam. Despite this argument making no sense, I haven’t seen any Ahmadiyya organization refute this notion or support M103.
The Ahmadiyya community would also legitimize Stephen Harper during his tenure. While Harper would push extremely harmful laws against the Muslim community, he would also visit Ahmadiyya Mosques to soften his image as a bigot.
They were consistently used to legitimize his deeply problematic and hateful agenda.
Ibrahim seems to be confusing others using the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims for bigotry against mainstream Muslims as somehow the fault of Ahmadi Muslims. This is a classic blame the victim narrative. I don’t think Ibrahim meant it that way, but without realizing it, this is the logical implication.
If the Ahmadiyya Muslim leadership didn’t support M-103, I’d be surprised. But if they instead said they don’t want to be singled out, but that all religions should be included in the wording of the motion, I also wouldn’t be surprised and I would commend them for it.
As for Prime Minister Harper’s visit to the Ahmadiyya Muslim mosques, such visits routinely took place with politicians from ALL major parties—both before elections and while such politicians were serving in office. I’m not sure why Ibrahim is singling out Prime Minister Harper. Should the Ahmadi Muslims have disinvited him? Tell them that they disagree with his policies, so he is not welcome to their mosque?
If President Trump wanted to visit an Ahmadi Muslim mosque, as much as his agenda runs counter to so much of what Ahmadi Muslims stand for, they would show the moral high ground and welcome him into their mosque. And they would use whatever additional channels such a visit might give them fleeting access to, to convey their displeasure and constructive criticisms. They would do it respectfully—not because Trump deserves it—but because the office of the presidency is of such a stature and promoting order in the land is a religious value to them.
Recently on Twitter, a still practicing Ahmadi Muslim told me that when the Ahmadi Muslim Khalifa met with Harper, he protested gay marriage laws in Canada. The Ahmadiyya Muslim approach is to build bridges and keep the lines of communication open. You don’t disinvite elected officials who represent the will of the people and the law of the land.
If Prime Minister Harper went to an Ahmadi Muslim mosque and not the mosques of mainstream Muslims, he was losing face with a sizeable minority in Canada. Why do that? Maybe he wasn’t invited? Maybe he didn’t feel safe in those other mosques? After all, it is the Ahmadi Muslims who have the slogan, “Love for All, Hatred for None”. It is the Ahmadi Muslims who can claim not a single terrorist has come from their Community in their 100+ year history.
I haven’t seen that or similar on a Salafi Muslim or Hizb ut-Tahrir bumper sticker.
Honestly, Ahmadiyya Islam is doing the mainstream Muslim world a huge favor. They are making the face of Islam look a lot more tolerant and peaceful than it actually is—in my humble opinion.
When non-Muslims in the USA and Canada see Ahmadi Muslims in action in local communities around the world, I submit that these actions give Western citizenry a false sense of comfort, because Ahmadi Muslims are sadly, such a minority within the Muslim diaspora.
Read Douglas Murray on Ahmadi Muslims always being so visible and springing into action whenever the reputation of Islam generally, is at stake.
Ahmadi Muslims run campaigns promoting a nicer vision and version of Islam whilst downplaying their own role in it. Just look at the TrueIslam.com campaign and social media activity.
Here’s Ibrahim’s fifth point:
5. The thrust of Aman Ali’s post – that Muslims should accept the Ahmadiyya community as co-religionists is disingenuous.
Is it really fair to ask mainstream Muslims to abandon their core theological beliefs? It’s impossible to accept the validity of Prophethood after the Prophet Muhammad as a legitimate Islamic belief, while also holding the finality of his Prophethood as a core theological tenet.
This is not to say that our community doesn’t need to have better adab, respect and manners when dealing with other communities – especially the Ahmadiyya community. We absolutely do. But demanding we alter our theological beliefs is unreasonable and corrosive to real possibilities of inclusion.
I know he doesn’t explicitly ask or demand for a theological alteration in this post, but that has been the theme of many other social media posts on the topic.
I don’t believe Aman Ali’s post was suggesting that mainstream Muslims should abandon their core theological beliefs. How about simply saying, “these are Muslims with a very different interpretation of Islam than us”.
Is it really that hard? And while this post is not about the minutia of Islamic theology, Ahmadi Muslims have a good case on that big contentious issue of prophethood (hint: Is Jesus who most Muslims expect to come to Earth in the latter days not a prophet? Won’t he chronologically, also be appearing after Muhammad, but without a new law? Yeah, exactly my point).
If you read Ahmadiyya Muslim literature, you’ll see a strong case made for how the Ahmadiyya Islamic view can be argued—even if you yourself as a conservative Muslim choose not to accept it.
You can read my summary of Ahmadiyya Islam, including an introduction to this issue, here.