Does “True Islam” Really Claim that there’s No Monopoly on Salvation?

This is a guest post from Q.Ahmad, who grew up as an Ahmadi Muslim keen on studying details of the faith. Here, Q.Ahmad challenges the legitimacy of the claim that Islam supports the view that there is no monopoly on salvation. This view has been espoused as Truth 9 in the True Islam campaign created by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

Formatting Notes.

This post has been reformatted for this website and adapted from the author’s original post on the Questioning Islam/Ahmadiyya subreddit.

Unless otherwise stated, the author is using the English Translation of the Qur’an by Maulawi Sher Ali, which can be found at alislam.org. This translation also makes use of the Ahmadiyya Islamic numbering scheme, where each chapter’s invocation of Bismillah is counted as the first verse of that surah (chapter).

Formatting changes (namely the emboldening of text in citations) have been added by the author for emphasis.

Synopsis

The True Islam campaign (TIC) is a project by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in America. Their aim is to correct common misconceptions about Islam. They seek to educate the public—especially non-Muslims in the West—about what Islam actually teaches.

Let’s take a closer look at the campaign’s professed Truth 9, which claims:

True Islam is a religion that recognizes no religion can monopolize salvation.

The basic claim here is clear:

Islam does not claim to have a monopoly on salvation. You may still qualify for salvation, even though you follow a belief system other than Islam.

It sounds very progressive. It’s a tolerant and inclusive way for a religion to embrace the diversity of beliefs we find all around us today.

An important piece of background information here, is that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community disagrees with mainstream Islam on the topic of whether Hell is eternal. I don’t believe, however, that the Ahmadiyya position on the Islamic conception of Hell being a temporary abode, actually survives critical examination. No doubt, it’s an interesting conversation, but one for another day. In this post, my focus is on the following three questions:

Do the Qur’anic verses presented by the TIC actually support their claims regarding the asserted Truth 9?

Does the context of relevant Qur’anic verses actually support the interpretation that the TIC is making?

Is the interpretation proposed by the TIC actually in accordance with their own Ahmadiyya Islamic theology and literature?

Archive: Campaign Website and Truth 9.

You may wish to peruse the True Islam website before you continue reading this refutation of its ninth asserted truth. In the event that the TrueIslam.com website contents are changed or taken down, a cursory scroll through the website and ‘Truth 9’ is included in the following video archive, for your convenience.

Truth 9: The Claims

There are two key claims being made in the section entitled Truth 9, which I’d like to draw your attention to.

Claim 1

True Islam recognizes that no one religion holds a monopoly over salvation. The Holy Quran clearly supports this belief as it declares, “Surely, those who believe and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians—whichever party from among these truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve” (2:63).

This verse demonstrates that it is not just Muslims who will receive the rewards of their good deeds. Jews, and Christians, and Sabians—those who are of non-Abrahamic religions—will all be rewarded for their good deeds and their faith. Indeed, it is impossible for Muslims to declare a monopoly on salvation when the Holy Quran clearly states that those of other religions who do good deeds will have no fear.

Truth 9 Recognizes no religion can monopolize salvation
website: TrueIslam.com
archive: October 28, 2018

The claim, as highlighted by me, is clear. The Qur’an is saying that to gain salvation, it is not necessary that one be a Muslim (i.e. a believer in Islam). Apparently, salvation is available through other belief systems as well.

Claim 2

The Holy Quran is likewise clear that God’s grace and mercy are His most powerful attributes: “God replied, I will inflict My punishment on whom I will; but My mercy encompasses all things” (7:157). Therefore, True Islam recognize1 that ultimately, God’s mercy will encompass all human beings, regardless of their faith. Indeed, True Islam teaches that if mercy were not one of the attributes of God, no one would be delivered.

Truth 9 Recognizes no religion can monopolize salvation
website: TrueIslam.com
archive: October 28, 2018

Clearly, the TIC is claiming that this verse applies to all human beings, including atheists and apostates like me.

A Closer Look: ​Qur’an 7:157

Let’s take a closer look at verses 7:157-158 of the Qur’an. This time, in full.

7:157 `And ordain for us good in this world, as well as in the next; we have turned to Thee with repentance.’ God replied, `I will inflict MY punishment on whom I will; but MY mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it for those who act righteously and pay the Zakāt and those who believe in Our Signs—

7:158 `Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the Immaculate one, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them. He enjoins on them good and forbids them evil and makes lawful for them the good things and forbids them the bad, and removes from them their burden and the shackles that were upon them. So those who shall believe in him, and honour and support him, and help him and follow the light that has been sent down with him—these shall prosper.`

Qur’an 7:157-158

translation: Maulvi Sher Ali

source: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

archive: p.184 p.185

Given the content and context for verse 7:157, the TIC’s choice of what to include in their quotation looks very odd. They have clearly left out important context for the half sentence which they did quote. The part they quoted is a direct reply by Allah to the repentance in the sentence preceding it. That is crucial context. When left out, it changes the meaning of the verse.

The verse is clearly talking about believers, people who pay zakat, and who follow and honour Muhammad. In other words, Muslims. It makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it includes all human beings, including disbelievers like me.

​On Mercy

But… but it says, “MY mercy encompasses ALL things”?

Some Ahmadi apologists claim that since the portion of the verse quoted by the TIC uses the word ‘all’, they are then justified to expand the scope of the salvation offered as  being a promise to all human beings. I don’t see any justification for making such a leap.

The context of the verse is about Moses bringing back the tablets and his people worshiping a golden calf:

7:149 And the people of Moses made, in his absence, out of their ornaments, a calf…

If you read that verse in context, it is clear that the point of the chapter is to emphasize the need for repentance, and in God’s capacity to accept it:

7:154 But those who did evil deeds and repented after that and believed, surely, thy Lord is thereafter Most Forgiving, Merciful.
​
7:156 …Thou art our Protector; forgive us then and have mercy upon us, for Thou art the Best of those who forgive.
​
7:157 `And ordain for us good in this world, as well as in the next; we have turned to Thee with repentance.` …

​So, what this part is actually talking about is God’s response to that repentance. God is willing to forgive ‘all things’ even if the sin committed is as severe as shirk. The term ‘all’ is referring to God’s mercy being able to forgive all sins. This forgiveness, however, is contingent on that repentance. It does not provide the blank check of eventual salvation for all human beings, including non-believers.

What about Bismillah?

Another line of defensive apologetics that I’ve come across in debates is that the word رَحْمَتِي (rahmati) used in Qur’an 7:157  has the same triliteral root as is used in the bismillah verse (“In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful”).

The apologetic claim is that rahman and rahim in the bismillah verse stand for ‘mercy comprehending the entire universe’ and ‘a mercy limited in its scope but repeatedly shown’. This meaning is apparently also being repeated in verse 7:157. Since the mercy granted by the first of those words in the bismillah verse encompasses everyone, including non-believers, Ahmadi Muslim apologists feel justified in expanding the scope of the mercy granted in verse 7:157 to all people— including non-believers.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that one has to ignore the rest of verse 7:157 and in fact, the entire context of its containing chapter. One has to ignore the emphasis on repentance and the turning away from sins. Only once these conditions are met, can one have their past transgressions covered.

Basing an interpretation of salvation doctrine on the deconstruction of one word alone is to simply rip the word mercy out of its clear context.

The mistake made here by the TIC is in their overruling of a specific claim with a more general claim. The following example will illustrate why such reasoning is flawed.

Rule (A): Everyone is allowed to enter my house.

Rule (B): Only my friends are allowed to enter my room.

There is no contradiction between these two statements.

Statement (A) is a general rule.

Statement (B) reflects my introducing an additional condition. It limits the scope of (A) for a specific subset of (A).

Ahmadi Muslim apologists for the TIC are basically arguing like this:

​(1) Rule (A) allows everyone to enter my house.

(2) My room is part of my house.

Therefore, everyone is allowed to enter my room.

​To conclude that everyone is allowed to enter my room is to ignore the modification of Rule (A) with the restrictions imposed by Rule (B). In my room, the general rule of ‘everyone’ does not apply, even if ‘my house’ in a general sense would theoretically also encompass my room.

Bringing it back to Qur’an 7:157, it is simply not relevant what the scope of the word ‘mercy’ is in the bismillah verse. It is simply not relevant whether, according to the bismillah verse, atheists and other non-believers might also enjoy some general blessings of God’s mercy.

The real question is: does such an interpretation of mercy apply to salvation as laid out in Qur’an 7:157?

The answer is a clear no. The mercy in verse 7:157 is a response. This mercy is contingent on true repentance and has to be followed up with both works and belief.

Recall what Qur’an 7:157 has to say when you read the entire verse.

7:157 `And ordain for us good in this world, as well as in the next; we have turned to Thee with repentance.’ God replied, `I will inflict MY punishment on whom I will; but MY mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it for those who act righteously and pay the Zakāt and those who believe in Our Signs—

Qur’an 7:157

translation: Maulvi Sher Ali

source: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

archive: p.184

Notice how mercy is predicated on all of the following three conditions:

Acting righteously

Paying the Zakāt

Belief in Allah’s Signs (elaborated on in Qur’an 7:158)

Aside from Muslims, who else could possibly meet all three conditions? Can one be a Christian who ignores Allah’s signs in support of Muhammad and Islam? Can an atheist “believe” in any of Allah’s alleged signs?

Ignoring the context here, is to turn the very meaning of Qur’an 7:157 on its head.

A Closer Look: Qur’an 2:63

For reference, here is Qur’an 2:63.

Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians—whichever party from among these truly believes in Allāh and the Last Day and does good deeds–shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.

Qur’an 2:63

translation: Maulvi Sher Ali

source: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

archive: p.10

Here is what Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad (the 2nd Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community) writes about this verse in his famous Qur’anic commentary:

The verse is important, and much difference has arisen about its real meaning. Some who are not in the habit of making a deep study of the Quran have hastily jumped to the conclusion that, according to this verse, belief in Islam is not necessary. They say that anybody, whether he is a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian or any other, who sincerely believes in God and the Last Day and does good deeds will be saved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Quran emphatically declares in a number of verses that belief in the Holy prophet and his revelation is essential. Says God: Surely those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers and say ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in others,’ and desire to take a way in between, these indeed are veritable disbelievers; and We have prepared for disbelievers an humiliating punishment (4:151, 512). Again, And those who believe in the Hereafter believe therein (i.e. the Quran) and they strictly observe their prayers (6:32).

From these two verses it becomes clear beyond any shadow of doubt that according to the Quran (1) belief in the Prophets is part and parcel of belief in God. And (2) belief in the Hereafter includes Belief in God’s revelation as well. Elsewhere the Quran says, Surely the true religion with Allah is Islam (complete submission) and whoso seeks a religion other than Islam it shall not be accepted from him and in the life to come he shall be among the losers (3:20, 86).

This verse along with the two quoted above definitely proves that the objection mentioned above is entirely baseless and is born of utter ignorance of the real Quranic teachings. In fact, as explained in the above verses, the Quran confides itself to a mention of belief in God and the last days, not because belief in the Holy prophet and the Quran is not essential, but because the former two beliefs include the latter two, the four being essentially inseparable.

Commentary from p. 127-128

book: The Holy Qur’ān — Arabic text with English translation, 5-Volume Commentary

source: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

edition: (UK) 1988

archive: Nov 18, 2018

I don’t have much to add other than that I agree with the second Ahmadi Muslim Khalifa’s interpretation here. It completely and unambiguously debunks the claim made by the ‘True Islam’ campaign.

Summary

The True Islam campaign claims in Truth 9 that “True Islam rejects any type of a monopoly on salvation”.

The TIC claims that Qur’an 7:157 suggests an eventual salvation for all human beings. I have shown, however, that this is a classic case of contextomy (quoting out of context). The TIC campaign has ripped part of the Qur’anic verse out of its context (i.e. the rest of the verse) and the narrative in which it was embedded. The TIC’s interpretation leaves out the conditions for salvation, which the verse itself has already established.

The TIC also claims that Qur’an 2:63 makes it,

impossible for Muslims to declare a monopoly on salvation

But their own caliph, the late Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, has already debunked that interpretation:2

Some who are not in the habit of making a deep study of the Quran have hastily jumped to the conclusion that, according to this verse, belief in Islam is not necessary. (…) Nothing could be further from the truth.

The aforementioned statements cannot both be true. Either the interpretation given by the TIC “is entirely baseless and is born of utter ignorance of the real Quranic teachings”, or the interpretation given by the second khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community doesn’t represent “True Islam”.

Final thoughts

In this post, I have shown that:

The verses presented by the True Islam campaign do not support their claims.

The content and context of the relevant verses negate the interpretation that the True Islam campaign has put forward.

The interpretations promoted by the True Islam campaign have been called out and already debunked in the True Islam campaigners own Jama’at literature. And by their second khalifa, no less.

​Even if one believes in a finite hell and maintains that the overall point the TIC tried to make can still be true, I do believe that it is worth thinking about the lines of reasoning put forward by the TIC, and whether they are valid.

If I hold a belief, I don’t have to accept every argument that someone makes in support of it. The credibility of each argument has to be assessed independent of my belief in the validity of the conclusion. To do otherwise, is to simply feed one’s confirmation bias. It would be working backwards from a desired conclusion instead of making an actual argument for the position one supports. It is possible to make a bad argument for a valid statement.

I would encourage my brothers and sisters within the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to look with neutral eyes upon the arguments presented.

It is important that the people who hold a belief try to ensure that the arguments put forward are both sound and well supported. In addition, believers should call out those conclusions which have been poorly argued.
The post Does “True Islam” Really Claim that there’s No Monopoly on Salvation? first appeared on Reason on Faith.