This criticism asserts that the overwhelming majority of Ahmadis are not well read in their own Ahmadi beliefs, specifically in the commentaries of the Qur’an. He writes:

“Is (sic) the fact that *most* Ahmadis haven’t read a portion of a commentary mean that it is a religion adhered to blindly?”


This is an absurd point and so the refutation will be brief: 

Firstly, that which is asserted without evidence (and claiming insight based on “decades of observation” does not constitute evidence) can be dismissed without evidence. 

Secondly, most Ahmadis adhere to their beliefs based on the personal experiences they have of answered prayer, revelation either to themselves, or witnessed through members of their family, not on the basis of abstruse theological interpretations. If a person perceives a tree before them it is through touching it and tasting its fruits, not through pondering on its root structure. 

Thirdly, one wonders whether Sohail understands the intricate details of the Standard Model of Physics or Quantum Mechanics. Yet it is almost certain that he believes them. I’m almost certain he is unable to derive even the basics of Newtonian mechanics, and that’s from some 400 years ago! 

Finally, the key point being missed here is that Sohail fundamentally misunderstands religious claims. We need not reconcile ourselves to “modern notions of fairness and scientific truth” because we do not take such worthless concepts as absolute. “Modern notions” is a meaningless term. What is modern today will be archaic tomorrow. The “modern” 20th century produced the most horrific suffering the world had ever seen, through two world wars – both secular – and an atheist philosophy in Communism that murdered millions of religious believers and burned thousands of places of worship. Are these the “modern notions” we should bend our philosophy to accommodate? 

As an agnostic atheist of 100 years ago Sohail and those like him would likely have regarded homosexuality as sinful and pornography as evil. Yet today he likely sees nothing wrong with either. And that’s the key problem with all these objections. Sohail and those like him make societal norms fundamental to their moral philosophy and subjugate their moral compass to that. Islam on the other hand requires a person to make divine will True North. That, fundamentally, is the key conundrum facing Sohail and all of the objections he makes.