By Abdul Alim: The recent article by Mustafa Aykol in New York Times is sadly a typical example of the utter confusion that Muslim intellectuals, even well respected ones, suffer from today.

He does a great job of identifying the Muslim discourse including the sinister interpretation of traditions of the Prophet as a source of Muslim extremism and the narrative that shapes the worries of the western world. In fact, to be fair to the author, I must admit that I agree with most of the content of the article except the last couple of paragraphs. Let me reproduce these to refresh your memory or if you have not read it.

He writes;

“Muslims should also consider that the prophecies about end times might be better read metaphorically. This could help us open our minds, rather than closing them. The 19th-century Islamic scholar Muhammad Abduh, for example, argued that Jesus’s Second Coming was a metaphor for reform within Islam. Just like the conservative Jews at the time of Jesus, Abduh observed, conservative Muslims of today are often too rigid with the letter of the law, but unmindful of its spirit and the moral purposes. Abduh argued that Muslims need a “Messiah-oriented renewal” focusing on “mercy, love and peace.” His vision was focused not on “breaking the cross,” but on repairing the crescent.

Muslims can understand Jesus’s Second Coming in the horrifying way of the Islamic State or the inspiring way of Abduh. That is because religious texts come to life at the hands of men. And it makes a great difference whether the believers’ purpose is to self-righteously sharpen their blades against others, or to humbly educate and enlighten themselves”.

While I understand fully and respect Mr. Aykols reverence for Mohammad Abduh, a renowned Egyptian Muslim Scholar, I am a bit surprised at his selection of him as a voice of reason for reinterpreting the traditions and prophecies for the later days related to Islamic Apocalypse. Let me explain why?

First, Mohammad Abduh, by his own admission was a Free Mason, associated closely with Bahai faith, and a follower of Jamal-uddin Afghani’s Pan-Islamism. While his efforts for inter-faith peace were laudatory, I would seriously doubt his ability to coherently explain or to have a rational or clear view of what the later day apocalypse really means for Muslims mainly because of contradiction in what he says and does. He writes that Muslims need i.e. a metaphorical “Messiah-oriented renewal” and then goes on play a fundamental and founding role in the origin of what is called “Islamic Modernism” or more commonly known as “Salafism”. For anyone keeping up with the news today, it is not difficult to see how this particular brand of political Islamic thought has spawned militancy across the Islamic world including the likes of Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Second, this lead me to further questions. I am quite sure that Mr. Aykol has come across the literature by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a highly respected Muslim Scholar and the founder of Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam. Having read Ahmad extensively over the last two decades, I can say without doubt that he is the one of the most enlightened, modern scholar of Islam drawing strength from Quran and tradition, whose interpretations of the later day apocalypse are coherent and consistent with his view of the rational struggle for Muslim revival in the later days of Islam. There are no contradictions in what he writes and what the Ahmadiyya Movement he founded, does, since its birth in 1889. For instance, while his interpretation of apocalypse is quite close to Mohammad Abduh with a clear understanding of the metaphors, the action he recommends is that Islam is compatible with and encourages secularism. This is far superior to the Salafist view of how to be a good Muslim today because it resolves the tensions between Islam and its relationship with the nation state. A relationship that most Muslim scholars are still unable to reconcile today.

As opposed to Salafist ideology founded by Mohammad Abduh, one of the most revolutionary works done by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was his discourse on modern understanding and interpretation of Jihad and tracing it to its original roots of spiritual struggle during the early time in Islamic history. This has enabled Ahmadiyya Muslims to follow what Mr. Aykol describes as a fundamental element of Muslim faith i.e. humility

Finally I wonder if Mr. Aykol, has an issue with Ahmadiyya claim of being Muslims and of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being the later day Mehdi or return of the Messiah because he seems to stress that a non-metaphorical view is likely to close our mind. How does he reconcile contradictions in his own views of an amorphous revival of Muslims as they “humbly educate and enlighten themselves”, with “religious texts come to life at the hands of men”.

Whether he likes it or not, just like ISIS is bringing religious text to life, by starting a ferocious and blood thirsty Caliphate, there is another way the religious text has and is becoming alive through a peace loving, life giving Caliphate in Ahmadiyya Movement established in 1908.

Mr. Aykol goes on to say that “if the Dajjal is to blame for the Muslim world’s bleak situation, then only divinely guided saviors can find a way out. This belief discourages pursuing the real solutions to the gap between the Islamic world and the West: science, economic development and liberal democracy”. This is surprising because perhaps Mr. Aykol does not know of both Professsor Abdus Salam and Sir Zafarullah Khan, Ahmadiyya Muslims believed in Dajjal (a metaphor) and did not find the so called “gap” while following Islam and pursuing science or liberal democracy. Ahmadiyya Muslims, around the world are well integrated in countries they live in and are pursuing real solutions to demonstrate to the world how Islam’s universal teachings are a solution to the present world crisis.

Fortunately for Islam, and for the sake of sanity, let me gladly mention to Mr. Aykol, that it is not just “the Islamic State that goes further by claiming that it is bringing the prophecies to life”, but long before that Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam staked a claim to that and has an enviable record of over 125 years of reform led by institution of Islamic Caliphate showing the real face of Islam to the world. He would be happy to know that the Ahmadiyya Movement has been spending all its energy to avert and prevent an Islamic Apocalypse as it truly loves and believes in humanity and would do anything to avert disasters, real or metaphorical, to prevent human suffering.

So here is my last question to Mr. Aykol. Which apocalyptic interpretation would he prefer?, the one from Mohammad Abduh, or the one from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, because that would determine the action he is likely to take in response, the Salafist way of reforming the world, or the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam.

I invite Mr. Aykol to take a look. He will add to his scholarly stature if he does.