The Muslim Council of Britain is failing Ahmadis like Asad Shah

Originally posted on Guardian, here
In 2013, I organised an event at University College London for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Student Association UK titled Innocence of Muhammad. The aim of the event was to portray the true and peaceful character of the prophet of Islam, in light of the wild and violent responses of some Muslims to the slanderous video, The Innocence of Muslims. Unfortunately, towards the end of the event, a prominent member of the university’s Islamic society entered and distributed leaflets calling for the social boycott and “capital punishment” of Ahmadi Muslims.

As an Ahmadi myself, I am sadly familiar with such harassment. This minority community of Islam faces persecution in countries like Pakistan and Indonesia, and we are often treated with open hostility by many orthodox Muslims in the UK. The reason can seem arcane to those not of the Muslim faith: Ahmadis, who believe in their founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the expected Messiah and Mahdi of Islam, differ from the mainstream belief that prophethood ceased after Muhammad, as orthodox Muslims believe is laid out in the Qur’an.

I reported the leaflets to the university union and the matter was resolved internally. I thought that was the end of it. It was then a great shock to read media reports of similar leaflets recently discovered in the Stockwell Green mosque. Their discovery came a few short weeks after the fatal stabbing of another Ahmadi, the shopkeeper Asad Shah, in Glasgow. The man charged with his murder, also a Muslim, later released a statement saying Shah had “disrespected” Islam.

These are difficult times for my community in the UK. The leaflets in question were written by the now dead leader of an organisation called Khatam-e-Nabuwwat, meaning “the Seal of Prophethood”, which in Pakistan calls for the elimination of Ahmadis. This organisation also has branches in the UK, where it is a registered charity and an affiliate of the Muslim Council of Britain. A posting on the Facebook page Anti-Qadianiat (Tahafuz Khatme Nubuwwat), included the Guardian’s report of Shah’s death, with the message “Congratulations to all Muslims”.

It couldn’t be any clearer that Khatam-e-Nabuwwat is a hate organisation dedicated to the demonisation and social ostracism of Ahmadi Muslims. Yet somehow, it isn’t obvious to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) who, until this past week, registered the Khatam-e-Nabuwwat organisation as one of their affiliates. Only after the furore raised in the media at this did the MCB release a statement that it would temporarily suspend the affiliation of Khatam-e-Nabuwwat, and would launch an independent investigation into whether it really is a hate organisation. But what further proof do they require?

The MCB cannot be ignorant of the history of Khatam-e-Nabuwwat. It was founded in Pakistan as a movement under the umbrella organisation of Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam by Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari in 1953. The next year, Majlis-e-Ahrar along with Khatam-e-Nabuwwat sent an ultimatum to the then prime minister of Pakistan, Khawaja Nazimuddin, to remove all Ahmadis from leading government positions and to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim. Unless these demands were met, Majlis-e-Ahrar and Khatam-e-Nabuwwat threatened “direct action”. The government refused to capitulate, and the two groups responded by setting ablaze Ahmadi homes and businesses, resulting in the death of hundreds of Ahmadis, the demolition of mosques and the displacement of thousands. Thus was Khatam-e-Nabuwwat born, bathed in the blood of its fellow citizens.

Since then, Khatam-e-Nabuwwat has been instrumental in doing exactly what its leaflet claims – encouraging “Islamic” theocracies around the world to enact legislature making Ahmadi Muslims liable for capital punishment. Indeed, in Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims are liable to three years imprisonment and a fine under its anti-Ahmadiyya laws, or death under its blasphemy laws, both of which were lobbied into existence by Khatam-e-Nabuwwat clerics.

The “independent investigation” into whether the activities at Stockwell Green mosque (where Khatam-e-Nabuwwat is based) spread hatred is utterly defunct – especially since it ends with a disclaimer that “the investigation panel shall not involve itself in matters of theology or in actions/conduct/laws in countries other than the United Kingdom”. In other words, the MCB investigation is little more than a rigged jury, since all the evidence of Khatam-e-Nabuwwat’s hate-mongering is widespread in “countries other than the United Kingdom”. Do the crimes of an organisation abroad cease to be relevant when considering their potential harm in the UK?

It is easy to point the finger and blame Khatam-e-Nabuwwat for anti-Ahmadi hate speech, but the reality is that the MCB is also culpable. After Shah’s murder, the MCB released a statement, expressing its condolence and grief at his murder, but re-affirming that Ahmadis aren’t Muslim, despite Ahmadis self-identifying as such. Thus, the MCB has taken a position that is fundamentally at odds with the British values the MCB claims to hold dear: namely that a person must be accepted in accordance with their own self-identification. The right to self-identify, and to be acknowledged by others in accordance with that identity, is the cornerstone of religious tolerance.

By sitting in God’s seat of judgment, the MCB enables hate organisations to take it one step further by acting as God Himself, dealing out death to whomsoever they deem heretical. Until the MCB recognises this, its rigged “independent investigation” won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.

Was Muhammad a Man of Peace? A Detailed Response to Nabeel Qureshi

This article first appeared on Patheos, here

With greater scrutiny on Islamic teachings in the wake of terrorism committed by Muslims, a raft of pundits, not least of the Christian evangelical strain, like Nabeel Qureshi, have emerged.

In his latest piece in the Huffington Post, his misrepresentation of Islam follows two steps:

Firstly, he argues that when studying Islam, preference should be given to oral traditions, first written down more than two centuries after the death of the Prophet of Islam, rather than the Qur’an, of which we have copies dated to the life time of the Prophet of Islam himself, such as the Birmingham manuscript. There is perhaps no better endorsement of the Qur’an’s peacefulness than his earnest efforts to ignore it completely. Secondly, having discarded most of the Qur’an, he goes on to focus on oral traditions, yet only selects such oral traditions as present Islam as barbaric and inherently violent.

By ignoring the Qur’an – the earliest window into Islamic history that we have, and then by selectively quoting historical sources, Qureshi white-washes the entire history of seventh century Islam so as to serve the evangelical purpose of portraying Islam as a violent religion and Christianity as its peaceful counterpart.

As regards Qureshi’s first step, the Qur’an refutes him at every turn. Indeed, he ignores the fact that the Qur’an adamantly states that taking up arms is only permissible in self-defense, that hostility is only permitted against aggressors, thatpeace treaties must be kept irrespective of the religion of others, that peace must be preferred over conflict if the aggressor inclines to peace, and that non-Muslims must be treated with kindness and equity if they have do not persecute Muslims for their faith.

Ignoring all this, Qureshi focuses entirely on 9:29, claiming that it is a standing order for Muslims to kill Christians, Jews and others, until they pay money. Why? Because apparently Muslims were hard up due to the loss of trade after the idolatrous tribes who had butchered Muslims for 23 years were expelled from Arabia. This is an astonishing act of historical revisionism, when we consider that the Jews and Christians referred to were those who had actively plotted with the Byzantine empireto attack the Muslims, had attacked Muslims in the Battle of the Trench as well asencouraged other tribes to renounce their peace treaties with Muslims. He also ignores the fact that they had hired soldiers from the tribe of Ghatafan to kill Muslims. Despite all this, the Prophet reaffirmed his treaty they had broken and warned them against future breaches. That the Prophet did not force them to convert nor did he expel them from Arabia despite their persistent hostility, gives the lie to Qureshi’s statement that the Prophet fought them on account of religious differences. If that was the case, then why didn’t the Muslim empire attack the Abyssinian empire on its doorstep? The Abyssinian kingdom, despite being a bastion of Christendom, was not invaded because the kings of Abyssinia did not amass armies against the Muslims, as the Romans and Persians did, but instead welcomed Muslims into their country and permitted them freedom of religion. Indeed, Qureshi would have us believe that Muslims went all the way to Tours in France in a bid to convert Christians and Jews on pain of death, yet forgot to invade the Christian Abyssinian kingdom at their feet.

Qureshi goes on to cite another a-contextual tradition in support of his interpretation of 9:29, in which the Prophet of Islam is quoted to have said that he will fight people until they convert to Islam. He ignores the fact that such statements were made only in relation to those who had waged a war against Muslims, for their faith, butchering innocent people, forcing people from their homes and looting their properties. The Prophet of Islam stated that such people who deserved capital punishment for their crimes against humanity, were only to be given pardon if they became Muslim, as this was the only way that, de-facto, persecution against Muslims would end. Their pardon was an exception, despite their deserving capital punishment. Had Qureshi paid attention to the Qur’an, he would have known that as regards those who have not fought against you on account of your religion and not driven you forth from your homes, Muslims must be kind to them and act equitably (Qur’an 60:9). Indeed, if the Prophet was killing people of different faiths, then why did he not kill or harm Musaylimah, who openly renounced Islam and indeed, formulated a new religion with himself as its prophet, after the revelation of 9:29? Musaylimah did however meet his end after the Prophet’s death, when he raised an army and began butchering Muslims in an attempt to seize power in Arabia.

Therein lies the rub: in his second step, Qureshi conveniently ignores or omits all evidence demonstrating that the individuals or groups against whom the Prophet of Islam fought, always instigated war against him first and that he was always the instigator of peace treaties.

Using this technique, Qureshi’s misrepresentation reaches astonishing heights. He claims that the Prophet of Islam invoked curses on others, forgetting that all prophets of God, including Jesus, prophesy an evil end for their opponents. He claims the Prophet assassinated Ka’b Bin Ashraf, ignoring the fact that Ka’b instigated the tribes of Mecca to wage war against Muslims and himself tried to murder the Prophet of Islam. He claims that the Prophet encouraged deceit to kill Ka’b, ignoring that the earliest and most authoritative traditions make no mention of this. He claims the Prophet assassinated Abu Rafi in his sleep, ignoring the fact that Abu Rafi was an arms dealer, supplying weapons to tribes actively killing Muslims for their faith. He claims that the Prophet of Islam had his enemies’ eyes gouged out as a punishment, ignoring the fact that the earliest tradition sources deny that he blinded anyone and that they were not simply his “enemies” as Qureshi misrepresents, but criminals who had themselves gouged out the eyes of innocent people in addition to robbing, killing and decapitating civilians and raping women. He further claims that the Prophet of Islam ordered the killing of an entire Jewish tribe’s male population, despite the fact that this was not ordered by him but by another who was appointed by the Jewish tribe themselves as an arbiter, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, who had judged in accordance with the Jewish teachings, not Islamic teachings, against the tribe, for their treachery against the Muslims in wartime. He further omits that the Prophet granted security to any of the Jewish men who sought it, and protected them from being killed. He claims further that the Prophet of Islam led armies against unarmed cities, referring to the city of Khaybar, which was one of the most heavily fortified and armed cities in Arabia and which has already been spoken of as attacking the Muslims at the battle of the Trench and encouraging other tribes to renounce peace treaties with Muslims.

The above are a few examples of how Qureshi white-washes history. Given that such facts have been presented to him time and time again, and yet he continues to misrepresent these events so as to serve his own evangelical ends, indicates that it is not ignorance but dishonesty that drives him.

In my last article, I challenged Qureshi to provide a statement from the Bible that is as clear as this Qur’anic one, teaching the importance of maintaining peace treaties, as well as on the fact that fighting is only permitted as self-defence. He has failed to provide anything, indicating that he has no reply. The reality is that Islam, being a complete guidance, provides teachings on when the fight for freedom is legitimate. Those of other faiths, especially Christianity, have had to look outside their religion for guidance on when to fight and how to behave in wartime, since neither Jesus nor any of his immediate successors had to go to war. The Prophet of Islam however provided guidance on all aspects of life, since he was confronted with both times of peace and times of war.

Qureshi and others like him who deliberately spread such misinformation about Islam are the best allies of terrorists like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Misinformed Muslims, seeing extremists on one hand and Christian evangelicals posing as historians of early Islam on the other, are led to the wrong conclusion that Islam is a religion of violence. Qureshi’s false argumentation leads to a self-fulfilling cycle of extremism where Islam is misrepresented, leading to further radicalisation and further terrorism, resulting in the further misrepresentation of Islam.

Then again, that might just be precisely what he wants.