Whenever I come across discussions between us Ahmadis non-Ahmadis, relating to the persecution of our community and the discriminatory laws that are in place for example in Pakistan, the justification presented by our critics basically revolves around the idea of two points, which are.....
1. "The Ahmadiyya beliefs challenge the faith of other Muslims, they´re blasphemous and cause offence to Muslims."
2. "Ahmadis must first disassociate themselves from Islam, and they can then practice whatever faith that they please and are free to form whatever beliefs that they please. The problem arises when they "pose" and "identify" themselves as Muslims, manipulating Islamic beliefs, and it is this heresy of theirs which causes us to come into action, calling for discriminatory laws to be introduced, and it is exactly this which invites the persecution from the common public."
I shall divide my answer to both these objections into three parts and deal with them through different angles.
Part one: the allegation that "The Ahmadiyya beliefs are blasphemous, offensive, and they challenge Islamic beliefs."
The big problem with these claims is that they´re entirely based on what you believe is right and what you belief to be wrong, instead of them being based on any rationality, and here´s how and why.....
Are not Islamic beliefs blasphemous and offensive towards Christians for example, and aren´t their beliefs challenged by Islam? Of course, they are!
- Muslims do not believe in Paul, for example.
- Muslims believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - a false prophet (Allah forbid!) according to Christians and someone who, according to them, portrays a false depiction of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), demoting him from the exalted rank of being the Son of God who did not die on the Cross.
- According to Christians, the true teachings of the Christ have been manipulated, altered, tampered with and mis-presented to the extreme by Islam/Muslims, and they´re hence blasphemous and offensive towards the former set of beliefs and community.
Now, bearing in mind these points, would non-Ahmadi Muslims be fine with it if the Christian-dominant countries, such as America, Canada, and the whole of Europe, were to introduce laws against Muslims and were to persecute them for it? Obviously no! No Muslim would digest that, myself included, and this proves my above point about this argument being based purely on what people believe and disbelieve in, quite clearly.
Part two: the so-called issue of "copyrights of Islam" - Ahmadis "posing" and "identifying" themselves as Muslims.
As it is, when the above set of arguments are presented before our non-Ahmadis, the answer that we get is that the difference lies therein that Muslims don´t pose and call themselves Christians and that they exist as a separate religion, like many other faiths of the world. So, according to them, the comparison is flawed to begin with. The first problem with is that this argument too is based on what our non-Ahmadi brothers believe in, instead of it being based on any solid reason. They believe that this is enough as a justification, and this is so because they´re the majority calling the shots here; otherwise, how is this argument, that Muslims don´t identify themselves as Christians, going to satisfy any Christian if they too were to introduce such discriminatory laws? Do you think that this point is ever going to matter to them? Of course not, because them being offended by the Islamic beliefs on Jesus Christ is the only thing which would matter to them, and this is precisely what happens when it´s the majority who´s making laws based on their beliefs, instead of there prevailing any common sense at all.
Some 13 years ago or so, I watched a debate on YouTube between a Jewish Rabbi and a Christian apologist on the validity of Prophet Jesus´ claim to being the foretold Messiah. Whilst putting forth his arguments, the Rabbi said that he´ll have no issues with accepting Prophet Jesus as the Messiah of another religion, or of a religion created anew, but he was definitely not the Jewish Messiah. Now, his line of thinking was perfectly aligned with that of the critics of Ahmadiyya and, going by their logic, the Rabbi did hold a valid point if you expand on it a little by taking a peek into the history of the Judeo-Christian conflict. When Prophet Jesus laid the claim to being the Messiah, the objection of the learned Jewish chiefs was that he offended their faith by claiming that he was the Messiah of Jews, whereas he, according to them, nowhere fulfilled the stated prophecies and description. It was pretty much the same case of the issue of "copyrights" of faith because Jesus Christ "offended" them and "blasphemed" by claiming that he was the Jewish Messiah as foretold in the Old Testament. Now, based on this, I´ve a few questions for non-Ahmadis.....
- Were the Jews, then, also right in demanding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and would it have been alright for them to pass laws against him and his followers, because he offended and challenged their beliefs by "posing" and "identifying" himself as the Messiah of their religion when he wasn´t the rightful claimant according to them?
This point ultimately proves that what non-Ahmadis have come up with, the point of "posing" as Muslims, too stands flawed if we see it in the context of the apparently "offensive" claims by Jesus Christ amongst Jews. However, the most striking thing yet is how the mentality of both the deniers of Messiahs matches with one another, as was beautifully foretold by the Holy Prophet Muhammad in Ahadith......
".... What befell the children of Israel will befall my Ummah, step by step, such that if there was one who had intercourse with his mother in the open, then there would be someone from my Ummah who would do that.... " - Tirmidhi, the Book on Faith.
To be very honest, the aligned way of thinking by both the folks, on this subject of the "Copyrights of faith", actually astonished me!
- The fact is that every folk amongst whom appears a Prophet is offended by his preaching, and there exist many verses in the Holy Qur´an which confirm this. Even idolaters used to feel offended and challenged by the concept of monotheism, and they would leave no stone unturned in their opposition to the Prophets of Allah lest their message should become popular amongst people. Same is the case with those who oppose Ahmadiyya. Merely denouncing us as heretics and disbelievers through the religious clergy didn´t suffice for them, as they still feared the spread of our message, and it is exactly this fear which led them into passing legal restrictions against our beliefs. So, the comparison with Jews aside, the opponents from amongst non-Ahmadis are actually following the path adopted by the deniers and disbelievers of many Prophets from the past, as narrated in the Qur´an. Surely, the Prophets of Allah never forced their beliefs upon anyone and fully upheld the freedom of faith and yet, still, their opponents would even plot their killing and take other extreme measures. Why? Because they feared the spread of the message of those Prophets. Therefore, keeping this in mind, the theory of the copyrights of Islam is a lame justification which non-Ahmadis heavily tend to rely on, whereas, in reality, the reason behind their extreme measures lies much deeper than what they outwardly express, and such indeed was the way adopted by the opponents of the previous Prophets of Allah.
- Besides, why does this point of "posing" as Muslims not apply to Shias, according to the Sunni Supremacists? You know why? Because, as I often say in Urdu, "Bandook ki zubaan har koi samajhta hai (everyone understands the language spoken by the gun)." When the laws against us were passed, did any protests take place? Did bombs go off? Were people killed? Did sit-ins on the streets takes place? Were properties and belongings of people damaged or vandalised? The fact is that Shias form quite a large part of the Muslim population, and their even exist Shia-majority countries in the world, such as Iran, and Pakistan would´ve been torn into pieces through a civil war had any such laws been passed against them. In the modern era, the conflict has died down in Pakistan somewhat, not entirely though, and our recent generations have begun to see Shias as a part of Islam, but originally the history of the conflict bears quite a heavy weight. As an example, I may turn to the most famous website of Islamic rulings which is run by scholars from Saudi Arabia......
".... The Shi‘ah have a number of beliefs and actions that put them beyond the pale of Islam, such as their belief that the Holy Qur´an has been distorted, and that their Imams have knowledge of the unseen, and are infallible and cannot be heedless or forget. They seek the help of the dead and call upon them instead of Allah; they prostrate towards their graves; and they revile the best of mankind after the Prophets and Messengers, namely the Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and regard them as disbelievers....... Whoever believes in any of these things, or does any of these acts that constitute kufr (disbelief) has gone beyond the pale of Islam, and meat slaughtered by him is not halaal.... "
Link to the article:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/60046/ruling-on-meat-slaughtered-by-the-shiah-raafidis
- Now, even this Fatwa aside, the question for my Sunni brothers is, is such a person a Muslim, according to them, who rejects the Caliphate of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them), holds them to be disbelievers and abuses Companions of the Holy Prophet, such as Hadhrat Muawiyah? Is such a person a Muslim? Act with honesty and you´ll have your answer, and yet there´re no laws in Pakistan to debar them from "posing" as Muslims!
*No offence is intended herewith towards any Shia. I hope that they understand the point that I´m trying to make.*
Part three: the guideline of the Holy Qur´an.
- What does the Holy Qur´an have to say on this? What are the guidelines afforded by Allah´s Book for cases when someone claims Prophethood amongst people? Muslims first need to understand the point of view of the Qur´an to learn how to deal with a claimant of Prophethood.
"And a believing man from among the people of Pharaoh, who concealed his faith, said, 'Will you slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah,' while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he be a liar, on him will be the sin of his lie; but if he is truthful, then some of that which he threatens you with will surely befall you. Certainly Allah guides not one who is a transgressor, and a liar' " - Qur´an 40:29.
Allah has honoured a mere believer by quoting his statements in the Holy Qur´an. Surely, it hasn´t been added just for no purpose, and the purpose of it is precisely that that we should learn something from it. About Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and his claim, the wise man says, "If he be a liar, on him will be the sin of his lie."
Now, his argument or advice isn´t based on the fact that he believes in Prophet Moses, for then he wouldn´t have said these words at all. His words stand valid regardless of his personal belief, and this is exactly the approach which should be adopted by Muslims. To reject the claims of a claimant of Prophethood lies well within their rights, but to persecute such a person or his followers contradicts the principle upheld by the Holy Qur´an.
- Interestingly, the Qur´an also tells us......
".... every nation strove to seize their Messenger, and disputed by means of false arguments that they might rebut the truth thereby..... " - Qur´an 40:6.
*Note: a tremendous amount of credit must go to Twitter users @sam3398 and @Khalid_Malik11 for their inputs and general help in the writing of this article. May Allah reward the brothers for all their help and efforts; Aameen.*
Warm regards,
Rawal Afzal (Twitter: @R_A_Azaad / @The_Traveller27).
