It Would Have Been Abu Bakr

بسم الله الحد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

Amongst the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was that he was so close to the Prophet Muhammad صلى لله عليه و سلم that he became the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. He wrote, “In short, my Prophethood and messengership is only by virtue of my being Muhammad and Ahmad, and not in my own right; and I have been given this name because of my complete devotion to the Holy Prophet.”

For those who might not know, this is loosely based on the Sufi concept of Fana’ (obliteration of the self in the personality of another), taken literally. In other words, Mirza Ghulam said that he was so much like the Prophet Muhammad صلى لله عليه و سلم that “no degree of estrangement” existed between the two.

But lets take a step back for a moment. What about Abu Bakr? Did he obliterate himself in the Prophet Muhammad صلى لله عليه و سلم? If so, why did he not “become” Muhammad صلى لله عليه و سلم, even more so than Mirza? Lets compare Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه to Mirza Ghulam.
Continue reading

Attacking the fundamentals of Islam to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

In one of his works, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani attributes a hadith to Imam al-Bukhari’s collection which does not exist in it. See Rohani Khazain vol.6 p.337 (هذا خليفة الله المهدى)

In their bid to defend Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, his followers take a lot of pain. Malik Abdul Rahman, author of the much celebrated Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, not only clutches at straws but goes even further to put doubt to the very fundamentals of Islam to justify the gimmicks of the false claimant of prophethood.

In the Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, pages 517-518, he comes up with various arguments to dilute the issue and presents the worst possible alternatives.

He alludes to two Ahadith of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم:

Narrations about the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم erring about the number of raka’ahs:

Firstly, there is a narration in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم mistakenly said the final salaam of ritual prayers (salaah) at the end of two raka’ahs instead of four raka’ahs..

Continue reading

The Four False Prophets, Part IV: Musaylimah al-Kaddhab

بسم الله الحد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

The Four False Prophets: Musaylimah Al-Kaddhab
Al-Aswad Al-‘Ansi Tulayhah al-Azdi Sajjah bint al-Harith Musaylimah al-Kaddhab

This is the last installment in a series of articles on four of the early false prophets from the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه. In it, we will discuss their rise, opposition by the Muslims, and eventual defeat.

I hope this one will be the most interesting and intense…
Continue reading

The Four False Prophets, Part III: Sajjah bint Harith

بسم الله الحد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

The Four False Prophets
Al-Aswad Al-‘Ansi Tulayhah al-Azdi Sajjah bint al-Harith Musaylimah al-Kaddhab

This is the third installment in a series of articles on four of the early false prophets from the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه. In it, we will discuss their rise, opposition by the Muslims, and eventual defeat.


Sajjah bint Harith was from a Christian Iraqi tribe named Taghlib. She was beautiful, a master of oratory, poetry, ability to game prophecies (ie, phrasing prophecies in such a way that they always come true). Coincidentally, her tribe held a prophecy of a woman who would become a prophetess. When she heard about the death of the Prophet Ahmad صلى الله عليه و سلم and the rise of other false prophets, she decided to use her skills and claim the prophethood foretold in the prophecy of Banu Taghlib. She join forces with Tulayhah al-Azdi, Musaylimah al-Kaddhab and Malik bin Nuwayrah, an apostate.

The Four False Prophets, Part I: Al-Aswad al-‘Ansi

بسم الله الحد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

The Four False Prophets
Al-Aswad Al-‘Ansi Tulayhah al-Azdi Sajjah bint al-Harith Musaylimah al-Kaddhab

This is the first installment in a series of articles on four of the early false prophets from the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه. In it, we will discuss their rise, opposition by the Muslims, and eventual defeat.


During the 12th year after the Hijrah, Al-Aswad al-‘Ansi (الاسود العنسي) from ‘Ans, Yemen claimed to be a prophet. He started his movement slow and secretly, but later grew to engulf all of ‘Ans. At the time, Yemen was ruled by Persian Muslims, notably Shahr bin Badhaan, whose father Badhaan had accepted Islam after receiving a letter from the Prophet Ahmad صلى الله عليه و سلم. But Al-Aswad’s forces attacked the Muslims, killed Shahr, and his forcefully married his Shahr’s wife Azaad.
Continue reading

Mahdi-Based Off-shoots Movements and Religions

بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

In Islam’s 1400 year history, its gone through wax and wane. At some points in time, the Muslims divided into hundreds of micro-states only to be united a generation later. During the periods of down-turn, an interesting phenomena would occur. In the pain and hardship, some Muslims would be led to believe that they were the blessed generation that would see Imam Mahdi. They would become absolutely convinced of it, after all, were not the signs everywhere?

The belief in Imam Mahdi is often invoked by oppressed, down-trodden Muslims or during times of immense social change. Ahmadiyya is not the first to claim to have the Mahdi, nor will they be the last. In this short presentation, we will explore some of the groups, provide a short background, and list their modern manifestations.

In no specific order:

Movement of Juhayman – Perhaps the most dramatic of these movements was led by Juhayman ibn Muhammad ibn Sayf al-‘Utaybi. Born in 1936 in Saudi Arabia, Juhayman witnessed the transformation of his country from traditional bedoin society to a 1st world modern country. Many of the social ills that crept into the birthplace of Islam deeply disturbed Juhayman. He convinced his brother-in-law, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, who bears the very name of the Mahdi mentioned in the Hadith, that he was the Mahdi. His movement started as a social reformation movement, but later developed a secret radical element. On November 20th, 1979, Juhayman ordered weapons to be brought into the Ka’bah, quickly overthrew the guards, and declared that his brother-in-law was the Mahdi. He took bay’ah (pledge) from his followers between the Rukun and Maqam of Ibrahim, the very spot foretold in the hadith. He setup sniper positions on the mimbars, killing the Saudi guards who came to stop the comotion.

Sadly, it took tanks, soldiers, and innocent bloodshed to put down the revolt. Ustadh Yasir Qadhi has an excellent talk on it available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLAm8wSPVAo. (The talk itself is about religious extremism, but he talks about this movement.)

Mahdiyya – A Sudani-based order, the Mahdiyya was started by Muhammad Ahmad, a leader in the Samaniyya Sufi order. Born in 1884, he claimed to be the Mahdi, and led a successful military campaign against the Turkish, Egyptian, Italian, Belgium, and Ethiopian forces that were occupying Sudan. Following his victory, he established a short-lived Mahdist state. The overthrow of the oppressive foreign forces led many to believe that he truly was Imam Mahdi. The movement was subsequently led by his “Khalifah”. Because Mahdiyya was never antagonistic towards mainstream Islam, it was reabsorbed back into the Jama’ah. But to this day, many Muslims in Sudan consider themselves adherents of Mahdiyya and still consider Muhammad Ahmad to be the Mahdi.

Mahdaviyya – An Indian Mahdi-based faith which believes the Messiah is Muhamamd Jaunpuri. Born in 1443, from a young age, Jaunpuri was regarded for his knowledge and wisdom. He made a series of self-aggrandizing claims, including being the Lion of the Scholars and Master of the Saints. He claimed to be the Messiah during a trip to Hajj, where he was subsequently ignored, but managed to spread his teachings in India, mostly in Ahmedabad. Mahdavis still exist in India, with small communities in the US, specifically in Chicago.

Ahmadiyya – An Indian Mahdi-based faith which believes the Messiah is Mirza Ghulam. Born in 1883, Mirza was respected by a sizeable contention of Muslims of India. He made a series of self-aggrandizing claims, such as being Krishna, the Messiah, a Prophet and others. One claim of his many claims was that he was the Mahdi. He managed to spread his teachings in parts of India and Pakistan. Ahmadis still exist in India, Pakistan, and parts of the UK, Canada and West Africa.

Babism and the Baha’i Faith – Perhaps the most successful Mahdi-based off-shoot, Baha’ism was started by Ali Muhammad Shirazi from Persia. At the age of 25 he claimed to be the Bab (Gateway) to the Mahdi, the Mahdi himself, and eventually a prophet of Allah. The spread of his new religion would not have been possible had it not been for the Shaykhi branch of Twelver Shi’ism, which holds the belief in the coming of Imam Mahdi to be imminent. Many of the Shaykhis accepted Shirazi as the Mahdi and this led to the rise of the movement.

Ali Muhammad Shirazi was executed by firing squad in 1850 by the ruling authorities in Persia. Afterwards, Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri, a disciple of Shirazi, became his most influential believer. He declared himself as Baha’u’llah, a prophet foretold by Shirazi, and gained considerable prominence amongst early Baha’is. Threatened with imprisonment and immense persecution, he traveled around the Persian and Ottoman Empire to spread his new faith.

To this day, the Baha’i Faith has spread all around the world. Ahmadiyya and the Baha’i faith are twin religions, with many common characteristics and remarkably similar arguments. The Babi Faith, as distinct from the Baha’i faith, still exists, but in extremely small numbers. Adherents refer to themselves as “Orthodox Baha’i“.

Al-Harith ibn Surayj – From Khurasan, Al-Harith was an insurgent against the ruling Umayyad Dynasty. He accused the dynasty of of committing many public evils, much of which was true. But Al-Harith went to the extreme of claiming to be the Mahdi, who would fill the world with justice. He allied with the enemies of the Muslims and took refuge with the neighboring pagans of modern-day Turkmenistan to help them in their fight against Banu Umayyad.

Interestingly, he enlisted Jahm ibn Safwan, one of the first ones to mix Greek Philosophic elements with Islam, which led to many of the early heretical groups. The Muslims en masse rejected Al-Harith for many reasons, amongst which was that it is well-established that the name of Imam Mahdi will be Muhammad ibn Abdullah. He was killed in 128 AH in a battle with rival rebellion groups.

(There are dozens of other groups, but I hope this short list should suffice. For more Mahdi-claimants, read this or listen to Ustadh Yasir Qadhi’s excellent series of talks)

Muslims – But what about the Muslims? What do we believe? Reflect on the fact that Allah never disclosed to us an exact date of the coming of Imam Mahdi, nor is it a major point of ‘aqidah in most classical books, nor is it explicitly mentioned by name in the Qur’an, and only a handful of hadith on him exist. This was no accident. We certainly believe in him, but Muslims should not sit back and rely on Imam Mahdi to come and fix everything. Instead, we should be active in reforming the wrongs of our time. He will certainly come, but Allah is our focus, not a knight in shining armor.

These groups started because of legitimate anger and frustration, wide-spread social change and political chaos. It creates a feeling of immediacy, of “lets me do something!” Complainency leads to a sense that the Muslims are not good enough, that we need to join a new movement of change! But we Muslims must not allow ourselves to be led astray by joining fringe cults or political movements. We already have a Jama’ah! It it does not date back to a new leader or founder, it dates back to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم! All of these groups began on legitimate concerns, but later went astray. Ahmadiyya is yet another one of them.

A man once came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and asked “When is the hour?” (ie, Day of Judgement). The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم responded by asking him “What have you prepared for the day?” Our goal is not to bring about the end of times and search for the Mahdi, but to purify our hearts and connection to God through his noble prophet.

If you want to find signs for something, you will see them everywhere. On a person note, I personally believe his signs are everywhere that he will come soon. But I am not actively waiting for him, counting down days on a calendar or announcing it on the street. Instead, we should focus on increasing our tawakkul, yaqeen, sabr and love of the prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. Rectify the problems in your community, help the poor, feed the hungry, the meat of Islam! This is what matters, not running away to join some false claimant to Imam Mahdi.

May Allah guide us all to what is true and keep us away from going astray.
Ameen.

Is the Ahmadi leadership system a Khilafah?

بسم الله الحمد لله و صلاة و سلام على رسول الله و على آله و سلم

Throughout my dialog with current Ahmadis, I have explained why Mirza Masroor and his ilk are not Khulafa’. This criticism has been met with push-back, insistence that he is a khalifah. In this article, I hope to explain why Muslims do not consider the “Khulafa-e-Ahmadiyya” system to be a Khilafah.

In a nutshell: The key historic definition of a Khalifah is the supreme political leader of the ummah (Muslim Nation), with autonomous power over an independent state, whose job is to govern based on the Shari’ah. None of the supreme Ahmadi leaders have ever met this definition and are therefore not Khulafa’.

When most think of the Khilafa, they exclusively think of Saydina Abu Bakr, Saydina ‘Umar, Saydina ‘Uthman and Saydina ‘Ali رضى الله عنهم. This time was one of the few eras in Islamic history when the political and spiritual authorities were vested in the same person, the ideal that the Muslims have always nostalgically looked upon.

Most Ahmadis (and even most Muslims) are only aware of their anecdotes, usually during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم. But after his departure, they do not know the policies and styles of governance any of them implemented. The Ahmadiyya view of Islamic history essentially ends after Imam ‘Ali عليه السلام and does not pick up until British-run India. This creates a skewed view of what the Khilafah is: a purely spiritual figurehead. Unfortunately, this notion is not in line with historical reality.

Continue reading

Jamaat Thoughts

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

I’d like to share something private with you, one of my diary entries from many years ago, shortly before I reverted to Islam from a life in the Ahmadiyya.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

If we’re agreed that there is no new Shariah – no addition or subtraction to or from it – then why is it obligatory to pay Chanda? If I don’t, I’m not allowed to vote, or bear office. 

Why is it that everyone bar the first Khalifa was in the Promised Messiah’s family? Is no one else good enough? I don’t believe in democracy. It’s a bullshit notion. Democracy throws up leaders like George Bush. A type of Democracy allowed Adolf Hitler to emerge. So I’m not saying the Huzoor should be voted. But if it is Divine Intervention that elects a Khalifa, why is Allah favouring only the one family? 

Why is there huge emphasis on Chanda, and none on Zakat, which is a pillar of Islam. And why do we talk about Jalsa Salaana more than Hajj? 

Why has the present Huzoor forbidden us from engaging in online discussion with non-Ahmadis? I won’t conjecture on this point – after all – I don’t engage with those morons who have cast judgement on me. Better just to leave them alone, there is after all, a seal over their hearts. But I wonder if there isn’t truth out there that has been hidden from us? 

We are mostly a very nice jamaat – but are we really just a family-run-tax-paying-messiah-cult masquerading as Muslims? I’m not judging, but I’m asking some hard questions and I am studying hour after hour after hour after hour. 

May Allah guide me.

 

And alhamdulillah, He did guide me. Most of my diary entries from this period end with “May Allah guide me”. Remember, back then I was a very ordinary Ahmadi, with very little religious knowledge, but I was a cultee, even if I was wondering if I was in a cult! You can see how at this stage, I was still referring to Muslims as “morons” with a “seal over their hearts”. And yet, my belief was being fractured. Despite criticising Muslims, I was wondering if truth had indeed been hidden from us. And how can we have been mostly a nice jamaat if we were so judgmental about other Muslims? Back then I didn’t even know what a jamaat was. As I look back at this, I realise that although I was hugely ignorant (and am still a long way from where I want to be), I was at least being guided.

If you’re reading this and at a similar stage. Make the leap. Come to Islam. It’s worth it. You’ll never look back.

 

 

The Shirk of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

Shirk is regarded as a major sin in Islam and the chief major sin among the group. Shirk is the concept of the sin of polytheism specifically, and refers to worshipping other than Allah (SWT), associating partners with Him, giving His characteristics to other than Him, or not believing in His characteristics and Allah (SWT) knows best.

“Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.”(The Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa (4) Ayah 48)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself acknowledges this as he says,

“…God will forgive every sin for whomsoever He wills, but He will not forgive Shirk – associating anything with Him.” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 1, Page 89)

In 1907, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad gave a ruling on a belief that he considered was shirk.

“…It is rude to say that Jesus didn’t die, and it is indeed major shirk”. (Roohani Khazain, Volume 22, Haqiqat-Ul-Wahi, Page 660)

This is his opinion, his fatwa if you will that if an individual is holding such a belief then s/he is committing a grave sin in the form of shirk. However, earlier in his life in the year 1880, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says,

“….But as a body of Muslims was firmly of the faith – and I too believed – that Jesus (AS) would descend from heaven… my earlier belief… which I had set down in Brahin-e-Ahmadiyyah… I was (then) convinced by several conclusive verses that Jesus Son of Mary (AS) had indeed died” (The Essence Of Islam, Volume 4, Page 46)

This is reiterated by A.R. Dard in his biography of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

“Ahmad (as) reiterated in the Brahin-e-Ahmadiyya, published in 1884, the popular belief that Jesus (as) was alive in the heavens and that he would come again to this world… It was in 1891, when God informed Ahmad (as) that Jesus (as) had died, that he changed his belief in this respect.” (Life Of Ahmad, Page 50 by A.R. Dard)

These standards of shirk were set by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself, not me, not you, not his opponents or anyone else for that matter. He believed it was shirk that Hazrat Isa (AS) was alive up until 1891. Therefore at least during the first fifty-six years of his life and the first fifteen years after supposedly being assigned as a “prophet”, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad believed Hazrat Isa (AS) was alive and was, in his own words, committing an unforgivable sin in the form of shirk.

If any Ahmadi can prove otherwise, I will remove this blog entry. This does not mean resorting to an ad-hominem argument by insulting me, attempting to belittle me or attacking what I believe and above all trying to find fault with the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) which many Ahmadi do when confronted by such a predicament.

It is as simple as this, did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad commit shirk? Do you believe it is possible for a Prophet of Allah (SWT) to commit shirk, the most heinous of sins, not only for a matter of seconds but a matter of years? If you believe he didn’t, please provide an explanation in light of the information above and I must reiterate, address the argument and the facts not the man.

Above all please do not insult the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by suggesting guidance on this matter was not available or that he (SAW) erred in his life. In addition to this whether Jesus (AS) is alive or dead is secondary so please do not divert the topic. The matter we are discussing is shirk and the admission of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was indulging in what he considered beliefs comprising shirk.

May Allah (SWT) guide us to the truth. Ameen.

Qadianiat at the Crossroads of War and Peace

Founder of Ahmadiyya Times calls for increased drone attacks on Pakistan

In recent years, the Ahmadiyya Community and its Qadiani followers have increasingly sought to portray themselves as the world’s only peaceful Muslims. This is an awkward proposition for most Muslims, for many reasons. Most gallingly, it disguises the underlying deceit that according to Qadianis, they are the world’s only Muslims. The 1.6 billion Muslims who maintain that prophethood ended with Muhammad of Arabia, in the Qadiani worldview, are disbelievers or kuffaar.

This is readily apparent from the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and his successors. (As a corollary, due to the Qadiani introduction of a new prophet in the form of Ghulam Ahmad, all Muslim schools of thought are unanimous in holding that Qadianis are outside the fold of Islam.)

Of course, the notion that Qadianis are the only peaceful Muslims, apart from its logical fallacy, suggests that all other Muslims are murderous fanatics. To be clear, Qadianis have certainly faced persecution, often at the hands of misguided Muslims, and there is no justification for such behavior. But to use this as an excuse to paint all Muslims as violent savages is wrong and illogical – in the West, at least, this is something we have tried to learn after 9/11.

Many Qadianis, unfortunately, seem oblivious to the dangers of painting with such broad strokes. In an insightful essay published last July, Professor Hussein Rashid calls out the Ahmadiyya for using fears of terrorism to promote opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. “Their approach,” he argues, “appears to be based on a Good Muslim/Bad Muslim dichotomy that ends up hurting the Muslim-American community.”

Indeed, Qadianis have become darlings of the right-wing media, with their leaders regularly appearing on Fox News to decry the radicalization of Muslim-American youth and promote the bizarre idea, as Prof. Rashid writes, that “a good Muslim should surrender the rights guaranteed by the state” – including the right to express criticism and disagree with one’s government.

Many Qadianis, it seems, are wedded to an old-world authoritarian model of leadership in which one simply does not criticize those in power. It has been suggested that the same mindset that encourages Qadianis to pledge unfailing allegiance to the hereditary and arguably corrupt system of khilafat also promotes the bizarre idea that in a modern constitutional democracy, free citizens should not openly practice their religion or criticize their government’s foreign policy.

Whether you call this approach quietism or blind loyalty, it certainly has ample precedent in Qadiani history. In a pamphlet written in honor of the 50th anniversary of Queen Victoria’s rule in 1887, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad writes:

RK tuhfa

This notice of congratulations is from the person known as Yasuu’ the Messiah who has come to the world to rid it of all sorts of deviations; he whose purpose is to establish truth in the world with peace and kindness; so that he may teach people the way towards true love and servanthood to their Creator; and to explain to them the path towards true obedience to their ruler, the Glorious Queen, whose subjects they are.

 

[Roohani Khazain, Vol. 12, Tuhfa-e-Qaisiriyya, p. 253]

It can thus be argued that the Qadiani worldview is motivated by two fundamental values: obedience to the state, and “love for all and hatred for none.” Interestingly, it is certainly plausible, and perhaps even likely, that these two values might come into conflict with each other. Here we can offer two opposing hypotheses. Either the Qadiani administration would choose peace and oppose violent and martial government policies; or it would unfailingly insist on unquestioned loyalty in all cases.

 

This is obviously not a novel predicament – it has been considered countless times throughout history by all types of communities, and with the exception of cults or autocratic neo-fascist societies, most people of conscience have come down on the side of an individual’s freedom -and perhaps even responsibility – to speak out against immoral and unethical actions of one’s government.

How have Qadianis attempted to reconcile this conflict? It certainly seems that, insofar as they acknowledge that such a conflict exists, that they come down on the side of unquestioned loyalty. Indeed, many critics have charged that the purported Qadiani belief in “love for all, hatred for none” is merely a public relations slogan and categorically does not apply to Muslims. (Interestingly, in many cases, it also seems that “unquestioned loyalty” also does not apply to Qadianis residing in Muslim-majority nations.)

All of this brings us to the founder and managing editor of Ahmadiyya Times. Imran Jattala, based in Los Angeles, is a high-ranking official in the Qadiani hierarchy and has unsurprisingly paid lip-service to the peaceful nature of the Qadiani faith on many occasions. Among his interests, he cites “the promotion of dialogue for peace and tolerance through interfaith outreach.”

On January 8th, however, Mr. Jattala posted a comment on a PBS article about the murder of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. He attacks the author for raising the possibility that the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with increasing death tolls among civilians, might be linked to rising extremism in the region. And then, in one sentence, he provides a robust data point for how one Qadiani leader reconciles his commitment to peace and his commitment to U.S. foreign policy. “The tasteless scenes of jubilation in the killer’s hometown,” he writes, “in my view make a case for more drone attacks, not less.”

PBScommentIJ

While the London-based Ahmadiyya Community has often been criticized for fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment and its generally pro-war disposition, rarely have we seen such unambiguous evidence of how fragile the “world’s only peaceful Muslims” are in their actual commitment to peace.

I do not profess to know how many Ahmadis, whether in the U.S. or Pakistan, support Mr. Jattala’s contention that more drone attacks on Pakistani civilians are needed. In any case, I hope the Ahmadi community engages in a critical discussion among themselves regarding their commitment to peace and how it should best be operationalized in a world torn apart by war.

Calling for more drone attacks on Pakistani civilians is probably not the best place to start.