Many times I’ve noted that while Sunni Muslims viciously persecute Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia, Ahmadi Muslim spokesmen in the West such as Qasim Rashid and Haris Zafar eagerly carry water for their persecutors and smear and defame those who speak out against the persecution of the Ahmadis. Now they’re joined by another Ahmadi Muslim writer, Kashif Chaudhry, who identifies himself self-importantly as “Physician, Writer and Humanitarian; Blogger at The Huffington Post and Express Tribune, Pakistan; Recipient, Presidential Service Award; Humanity comes First; Interests: Cardiology, Pakistan, USA, Human Rights and ‘Halwa Puri.'”
Chaudhry has written a piece at his blog that has widely circulated among Ahmadis on Twitter (which is where the whole controversy took place, anyway) attacking Pamela Geller and me, entitled “Spencer & Geller identify Taliban – but not Ahmadis – as Muslims,” based on a series of attacks they mounted against us on Twitter. The idea was to catch us in a dilemma: either we would declare that the Taliban were Muslims but the Ahmadis not, and thus supposedly be guilty of validating “extremism,” or would affirm that the Ahmadis were Muslims, and thus be caught out admitting that Islam is peaceful.
This dilemma is obviously bogus on its face. I have never claimed — contrary to repeated smear claims from Leftists and Islamic supremacists — that any particular sect of Islam represents “true Islam.” Not the Taliban, not the Ahmadis, not anyone. I have reported many times that groups like the Taliban make recruits among Muslims by representing themselves as the authentic exponents of Islam, and that peaceful Muslims have not ever mounted an effective comeback to those claims. But I’ve never said that the Taliban represented true Islam, or that Ahmadis weren’t Muslims. Chaudhry, as you’ll see, forces the evidence and assumes that I said that the Taliban were Muslims but wouldn’t say the same thing about Ahmadis. He obviously didn’t do a simple search of Jihad Watch that would have shown him hundreds of examples of my referring to Ahmadis as Muslims.
When I gave him just a small bit of this evidence on Twitter, the preening and arrogant Qasim Rashid worked the second part of the “dilemma,” claiming that by acknowledging that Ahmadis were Muslims, I had now admitted that Islam was a religion of peace — and that therefore no one need take seriously what I say about Islam and jihad violence. This is patently absurd, since then the persecution of Ahmadis by other Muslims only underscores that Islam is not a religion of peace. And Rashid’s conclusions betrays the goal of the whole endeavor: to get people to stop listening to Geller and me, because we reveal truths about Islam and jihad terror that water carriers for terror like Chaudhry and Rashid are desperate to obscure. It is a pity that Ahmadis like Chaudhry and Rashid are such faithful servants of those who are murdering their people in Pakistan and Indonesia, but that is how it is.
Some highlights of Chaudhry’s outstandingly dishonest presentation (you can see the whole thing here):
Nigerian Girls – Christian and Muslim – were kidnapped by Boko Haram recently. Pamela Geller wrongly claimed they were all Christians.
This was not a false claim on Geller’s part at all. The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has reported that 90 per cent of the girls were Christians. But that is just the beginning of Chaudhry’s dishonesty.
Whatever their faith, I asked her to join #BringBackOurGirls campaign against the terrorists.
Pamela insisted this was a “Muslim problem.”
Even though he puts the words “Muslim problem” inside quotation marks, Chauhdry doesn’t give a source for Pamela Geller saying this. And for good reason: she doesn’t say it. I searched her Twitter feed in vain for her saying this. Chaudhry simply fabricated the quote. Then, after mistaking (no doubt intentionally) her pointing out that Ahmadis are persecuted by other Muslims as a claim that Ahmadis were not Muslim, there came this exchange:
Rashid’s claim was based on nothing at all, and Geller immediately set him straight:
After a bit more contentious back-and-forth, Chaudhry picked up this theme from Rashid:
And he enunciated the point of the inquiry — to defame and discredit Geller:
Rashid duly took up the talking point:
Soon enough, they turned to me:
I asked Spencer for his own views.
I replied:
Now look how Chaudhry characterizes what happened next:
His stance is that Ahmadis could be equated to the Taliban!! :O
![]()
Do you see where I equate Ahmadis with the Taliban? Neither do I. Chaudhry simply made that up. My tweet was about how Qasim Rashid was a servant of the Ahmadis’ Salafi persecutors. Chaudhry’s taking that as an equation of the Ahmadis with the Taliban shows yet again his dishonesty.
Chaudhry kept pressing for an answer to his question, which seemed to me to be utterly irrelevant. I gave him one:
They refuse to identify Ahmadis the way they would like to be identified. Reason: “We are not Imams who can certify to your Muslimness.”
Indonesia: Machete-wielding Muslim mob attacks Ahmadi Muslim “heretics,” murdering three — February 2011
Taqiyya about taqiyya in the Washington Post: “An Ahmadi Muslim [Qasim Rashid!] writes a guest column in the Washington Post claiming to delineate moderate Muslim theology, but in reality, he just throws more sand in our eyes.” — February 2011
And from just a few days ago:
Baltimore Muslim leader says Islam doesn’t justify abduction — doesn’t mention sex slavery passages of Qur’an — referring to Ahmadi leader Faheem Younus
And so on. I could multiply such examples endlessly, but the point is made. I’ve always referred to the Ahmadis as Muslims, and Chaudhry didn’t bother doing even rudimentary research.
Anyway, heedless of all this, Chaudhry pressed on:
Do they also need Imam’s approval to consider Taliban Muslim?
“No, we dont [sic] need approval. Their claim is enough. We report it as such.”
Here again Chaudhry fabricates a quote: I never said, “No, we dont need approval. Their claim is enough. We report it as such.” He extrapolated that from my saying that I reported on what the Taliban said and did, but if he had checked Jihad Watch, he would have known that that is what I do with the Ahmadis as well. Then, building false charge on false charge, Chaudhry charges that I “censor” Ahmadis’ claim to be Muslim.
Now, so far in this post, all the tweets I have reproduced are also in Chaudhry’s article. But this one in which he made the charge straight out that I considered Ahmadis non-Muslims, and my follow-up (and others) in which I asked him to quote me saying that Ahmadis were not Muslim, he did not see fit to include:
I expect that he omitted them because he knew his charge was false, and that he couldn’t find a quote to substantiate it. Also not included in his article was my subsequent exchange with Qasim Rashid, in which I gave Rashid some of the evidence (which they could have found via a Google search) that I have many times referred to the Ahmadis as Muslims and that Chaudhry was lying. Rashid, a relentlessly mean-spirited, rude and unpleasant individual, responded with his usual arrogance and contempt:
Of course, I had done no such thing, as acknowledging that Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims, as I acknowledge that the Taliban consider themselves Muslims, doesn’t say a thing about what the Qur’an or Islamic tradition and law say about warfare against unbelievers. So we have the spectacle here of two respected Muslim leaders lying brazenly and repeatedly, ignoring evidence that didn’t fit their view, and forcing conclusions without a shred of evidence.
Conclusions:
1. Chaudhry and Rashid are deeply dishonest, and not to be trusted.
2. Chaudhry and Rashid fear Pamela Geller and me so much that they feel the need to lie in order to try to discredit us.
3. Chaudhry and Rashid are more interested in aiding their Sunni persecutors in defaming us than with standing with us who speak out against the persecution of Ahmadis.


















grego says
“and thus supposedly be guilty of validating “extremism,” ….bulls**t. You are paranoid. How in thee hell would that be validating? The king is NOT wearing any clothes boys….
Champ says
The world would be a much better place were islam NOT a part of it …
islam be gone!
KrazyKafir says
“1. Chaudhry and Rashid are deeply dishonest, and not to be trusted.”
Well, they are Muslims.
Peter B says
If Ahmadis living in the West failed to faithfully carry water for the Sunnis, Ahmadis living under Sunni majorities might well pay the price.
That plus the tribal dynamic: me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousins, etc.
Salah says
” Ahmadis living under Sunni majorities might well pay the price.”
MIGHT WELL???
(Graphic)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/02/indonesia-lynching.html
Bettina says
Quickly, everyone — Hannity will host a woman right now who experienced sharia law first-hand in her country and is coming on to talk about it! Pacific Time 7:30 pm. (EST may be 10:30 pm)
I’m sure it’ll be good.
mortimer says
The Ahmadis are the ones in a dilemma. They claim to speak for all Islam, while they are actually best described as Son of Islam.
Ahmaddiya is ‘Islam’ in the same way that Christian Science or Mormonism are Christianity. They have an additional revelation that makes them heretics and ineligible to participate in common activities with more orthodox believers.
Ahmaddis believe 97% of what other Muslims believe, but their additional 3% of ‘new revelations’ are what make them heretics.
I believe that Islam is based on Christian heresies around in the sixth century. Ahmadis did in the 19th century what Mohammed did in the seventh.
Just because they want to call themselves ‘Muslim’ doesn’t mean that orthodox Muslims or scholars must recognize their claim to legitimacy.
But that’s a side issue. We’re not interested in their doctrines…only in jihad. The Ahmadis have admitted classical jihad to be abrogated.
bettina says
Hello, Mort!
When you say, “I believe that Islam is based on Christian heresies around in the sixth century,” I’m not quite with you: I don’t see how Islam could ever be derived from Christian heresies?
Or, do you mean that Ahmaddiya used Christian heresies as a blueprint for itself, therefore you made a quick error in typing the word islam, above. I’m sure that’s the case.
Another Question:
To your statement, “The Ahmadis have admitted classical jihad to be abrogated,” are we to understand that they reject “classical jihad” in favor of a new form of jihad? The word “classical” throws me off…
Hope you come back to this page and look forward to your response. Thanks!
duh_swami says
I don’t care watcha call these people, they are no friends of mine.
I also divorced FOX for talking out of both sides of its mouth at once, about Islam, and bringing on deceivers like Zafar on a regular basis.
When they have invite Spencer on a regular basis, I might change my mind…
RodSerling says
Re: the issue of what is true Islam. From a practical standpoint, that issue is secondary in importance to the issue of what Muslims believe and practice, some of which may seem consistent with the core Islamic texts, and some of which is not or is less so. Muslims carry with them a variety of beliefs and practices when they enter our countries, and among these beliefs and practices are those that present problems for us, whether or not they are fully consistent with the core Islamic texts.
That said, I don’t think we, as people who are trying to educate non-Muslims about Islam and Muslims, can practically maintain a fully agnostic stance as to what is true Islam. I believe there is such a thing as an honest, fair, and comprehensive reading of the texts. Part of the educational process for non-Muslims is to do precisely that: Study these texts enough to get a reasonable idea of what Islam teaches, in order to predict Muslim behaviour, or to be alerted, in advance, about dangerous aspects of their beliefs and actions. How do we know a Muslim spokesman is wrong or lying when he says, sweepingly, that “Islam does not call for punishing ___________ [apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc.]?” How do we know a Muslim is engaging in dishonest selective quotation when he says “There is no compulsion in religion…” (Qur’an 2:256), or “Killing one person…is like killing all of humankind” (Qur’an 5:32)? Knowing at least the basics of Islam is an essential prerequisite for our attempt to educate non-Muslims, since non-Muslims are bombarded with pro-Islam propaganda in the media.
As for whether Ahmadis are true Muslims, I can’t say, mainly because the Islamic texts are not clear and unambiguous as to whether there could be a messenger (of sorts) after Muhammad (besides the returning Jesus, the Mahdi, etc.). However, if an Ahmadi explicitly rejected the widely-agreed-upon and scripturally-supported basics of Islam, such as that Muhammad is a prophet of Allah, the Qur’an is the book of Allah, Allah is the one true God; that Muslims (at least in theory) should pray, give zakat, make some form of hajj, strive for Islam (jihad), etc., I think a case could be made that they are not true Muslims and have departed into a different religion. (Note: I’m not talking here about lax Muslims; I’m talking about people associated with Islamic tradition but who consciously reject basic aspects of Islam as false).
To my knowledge, Ahmadis in general don’t reject any major aspects of Islam. This is contrary to popular and unsubstantiated claims that Ahmadis reject jihad and sharia. (In particular, for example, it is often claimed that they reject, absolutely and in principle, offensive jihad to establish Islamic rule). In all of the conversations that I’ve seen over the years on this issue, no one has ever cited primary Ahmadi textual evidence that categorically rejects jihad or sharia, or the parts of the Qur’an that command them. Indeed, the Qur’an itself says (49:15, my brackets) “The believers are only those who believe in Allah and His Apostle then they doubt not and struggle [j-h-d] hard with their wealth and their lives in the way of Allah; they are the truthful ones.”
I could be wrong though. Can anyone cite appropriate textual evidence from primary Ahmadi scripture that rejects military jihad, offensive jihad, sharia, and those parts of the Qur’an that command them? Have any of these Ahmadi spokesmen, who always seem to be on the attack in their defenses of Islam, been asked such a basic question?
Secondly, have any of these Ahmadi spokesmen and women been questioned on what they believe about Islam? Interviewing gets at information that would not arise in formats like articles, where the author volunteers information and claims. In an interview, particularly a critically-oriented one, the questioner can get at information that the author doesn’t want to reveal, either by extracting the information explicitly, or indirectly by implication (e.g., avoidance of answering questions that should be easy to answer for a “moderate” Muslim; refusing to reject outright some objectionable aspects of Islam or parts of the Qur’an; etc).
Charli Main says
There are many types of cancer but its still cancer.
There are many types of Islam but its still Islam
Both will kill you if not eradicated.
bettina says
Charli, your analogy rocks!
— There are many types of cancer but its still cancer.
— There are many types of Islam but its still Islam
— Both will kill you if not eradicated.
Sounds like a perfect syllogism, doesn’t it… a good little nugget!
el cid says
There appear to be self-identifying Muslims who have little interest or knowledge in the content of the Koran or the way the Islam is practiced, but are nonetheless concerned about the reputation of “Islam” and “Muslims”. They see Robert and Pamela as diminishing that identity and cannot conceive of them as allies. They cannot understand that they are being played by their true enemies that seek their silence and submission.
If some Ahmadis here or elsewhere have developed a peaceful and tolerant reinterpretation of Islam, then these people would be better served educating us about that and working to convert or correct the views of their less enlightened brethren. Specifically, how do they reinterpret the Koran to support their modern view? Where is the school and the curriculum?
Given recent history, simply claiming that their religion is a religion of peace is not enough. The guiding notions here are Toleration and Acceptance. This I have not experienced personally from practicing Muslims in the last 20 years. Quite the opposite. The non-practicing ones I meet agree with me and they are fed up.
Anushirvan says
“If some Ahmadis here or elsewhere have developed a peaceful and tolerant reinterpretation of Islam, then these people would be better served educating us about that and working to convert or correct the views of their less enlightened brethren. Specifically, how do they reinterpret the Koran to support their modern view? Where is the school and the curriculum?
Given recent history, simply claiming that their religion is a religion of peace is not enough. The guiding notions here are Toleration and Acceptance. This I have not experienced personally from practicing Muslims in the last 20 years. Quite the opposite. The non-practicing ones I meet agree with me and they are fed up.”
The truth is, Ahmadiyya Muslims can’t reinterpret the Koran to support their “modern view”. That is the main taqiyya cock and bull story they want to perpetuate. There simply IS NO such curriculum.
Take this for instance from http://www.islamicfaq.org/islam/index.html#Q9
“Q12. What is the difference between Ahmadi Muslims and other Muslims? (Back to Top)
Ahmadi Muslims follow the same holy scriptures and teachings as other Muslims. The key difference is that Ahmadi Muslims believe that the Promised Messiah (also referred to as the Mahdi in some texts) of the latter days has arrived and he established the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 1889. It is a revivalist movement that has no new religious laws or teachings as it seeks to rejuvenate the true Islam as taught by the Holy Prophet Muhammad(saw). Other Muslims are still waiting for a reformer to come.
As with all other Muslims, Ahmadi Muslims believe in the ‘Five Pillars of Islam’, and the ‘Six Articles of Faith’. They follow the same holy scripture (The Holy Qur’an), and accept that Islam is the final and perfect religion for mankind. They also believe in Prophet Muhammad(saw) as Khataman Nabiyyeen (the ‘Seal of the Prophets’) as he was the one who was the best model for mankind who brought God’s final and perfect message for mankind.
Ahmadi Muslims also follow the Islamic sources of guidance and jurisprudence– which is sourced from three main authorities:
The Holy Qur’an;
The Sunnah (practice of the Holy Prophet (saw)); and
The Hadith (sayings of the Holy Prophet(saw)) as given in the authentic books of Hadith such as Sahih Al Bukhari, Sahih Al Muslim, Sunan Abu Daud,Tirmidhi, Ibne Maja and Nisai”
That basically says it all. All Islam evolves around the content of the Quran itself and the Hadith. These are the fundamental starting points of Salafism, mainstream Sunnism, Shiism, Sufism, Ibadism, and the like. Without this fundamental core, none of these subdenominations can claim to be Muslim. Plus, “sanitizing” the Quran is explicitly forbidden by the doctrine. Then how on earth can Ahmadiyya Muslims claim they believe something else than what is contained within the Quran or the Hadith ?
You can not ecclectically choose what you want to believe in Islam. That is the whole point of Islam.
Anushirvan says
If one were to make a taxonomy of moral supremacy within Islam then it would look a bit like this:
At the very top you’d have Salafists who look down on Muslims of the 4 traditional Sunni madhabs (Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, although the Hanbali school is closely related to Wahhabi Salafism) They in turn look down on all Shiites (Twelver Shiism, Ismailism, Zaydism, Alawi and Alevi Shiism) who in turn look down on Sufism, and finally, probably bottom of the runt are Ahmadiyya Muslims. Ibadi Islam is contested as another type of puritanical Islam, a small minority all things considered, that will be equally frowned upon by all the major subdenominations as Khawarij.
So there is a hierarchy: different strains of Salafism consider themselves the cream of the crop and they consider all members of other schools of though as heretics and infidels. The same applies to Sunnis down on this taxonomic “ladder” and all the others within the taxonomy. Although Sufism has regularly made alliances with mainstream Sunni Muslims in the past, these alliances were merely conceived by temporary convenience and strategic necessity, and when mainstream Sunnism became a majority, Sufis found themselves increasingly under attack.
That’s the way it goes, people. Islam, contrary to its claims, can not put up a unified front across its own adherents as long as they keep this hierarchy into place, they always can put up a united front, however, when pitted against all default non-Muslims.
In fact, Ahmadiyya Muslims are just as prone to kowtow to Sunnis for the sake of trying to appease them. Which will never work. Plus, by their own admission, Ahmadiyya always claim to represent “Genuine / True Islam” themselves, so all in all, they are in no way any better then all the rest of them !
If anything, this makes Ahmadiyya Muslims the worst liers there are in my book. They always claim to represent peaceful, watered-down Islam, but at the same time they insist on being representatives of True Islam !
Contradictio in terminis ! You can’t have it both ways !
pdxnag says
The nuance is too fine for me. Anywhere Islam exists the more violent proponents among them – always pointing to Islamic texts – will seek to dominate all people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
So, how are the Ahmadis supposed to demonstrate their genuine Muslim nature, to an audience of Muslims that call them apostates and want to kill them? By attacking non-Muslims of course. This fits the observed phenomenon from the first paragraph. The intensity of the attack might be more subdued, or more squarely labeled a collateral attack, but is supportive of imposing Sharia law on all.
They are both Muslim. Heck, I never could make heads or tails out of the fuss over Coke versus New Coke either. Unless a so-called Muslim embraces the label of apostate I must accept their word that they are not.
Islam Classic, its all the rage today. More violence, less shirk. (Slay the unbeliever to prove what? That you are Muslim. See how that works?) Its all proper fodder for “Jihad” Watch — and aid is itself offensive.
All Muslims appear to be far more terrified of other Muslims than non-Muslims. They must huff and puff lest the label of apostate (or even being caught being amicable to any non-Muslim) lead to their death, at the hands of their chosen peers. The price for being polite is just too high.