The response to propaganda by the Muslim scholars of Final Prophet Conference

In order for the first amendment freedom of religion protections of the US Constitution to have meaning, religious orthodoxy must have the liberty to define their theology and protect orthodox beliefs against fringe heretical deviant theological innovations. A fundamental theological belief of mainstream traditional orthodox Sunni Islam is the belief in the finality of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him). The foundation of the entire faith of Islam rests upon that belief which Islam’s most sacred text protects: "Muhammad is not a father of any of your men, but he is a Messenger of God and the last of the Prophets. And God is knowledgeable of everything." (Translation of the Holy Quran 39:40) The traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also emphasize the finality of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him): “My position in relation to the prophets who came before me can be explained by the following example: A man erected a building and adorned this edifice with great beauty, but he left an empty niche, in the corner where just one brick was missing. People looked around the building and marveled at its beauty, but wondered why a brick was missing from that niche? I am like unto that one missing brick and I am the last in the line of the Prophets.” While a person certainly has the legal right to believe in prophets after the Prophet Muhammad, one cannot maintain intellectual honesty and claim to adhere to traditional Islamic orthodox beliefs while believing in a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). It is well within the right of mainstream Islamic scholarship to argue that belief in a prophet after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would be absolutely heretical to orthodox Islamic theology. Indeed every Islamic theological doctrine and issue of Islamic jurisprudence rests on the belief that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is God’s final Prophet to humanity. Likewise, one cannot argue that the belief that Jesus did not exist is consistent with Catholicism. At best, that would be intellectual dishonesty. A Catholic priest would be well within his right to preach that one cannot be a Catholic if they reject the trinity. Likewise, a Rabi would not be considered extreme for teaching that Judaism does not accept belief in the virgin birth of Jesus as part of the Jewish faith. In both those examples, religious leaders are free to teach the boundaries of their theological teachings. One would be disingenuous to bully Catholic priests and call them extremist for their refusal to consider someone who rejects the trinity as adherent to Catholic theology. Likewise, one would be disingenuous to bully Jewish Rabbis and call them extremist for their refusal to consider a person who worships Jesus as adherent to the Jewish faith. Attempts by Kashif Chaudry to misrepresent, defame, and bully orthodox Muslim scholars and label them as extremist for their defense of traditional Islamic theology only reinforces his disingenuous fringe positions and intellectual dishonesty. Chaudry has a history of using deceptive and dishonest means to defame and bully traditional Muslim orthodox leadership for their refusal to legitimize the fringe theologically heretical Qadiyani beliefs argued by Chaudry that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a Prophet recognized by the Islamic faith. As explained above, belief in a Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is completely contrary orthodox Islamic theology. When Chaudry fails to bully Muslim leadership into accepting his heretical beliefs as part of Islamic orthodoxy, he resorts to smear tactics and defamatory misrepresentation to incite fear and hate of mainstream Muslim leaders, pandering to narratives promoted by the Islamophobia industry which defames mainstream Muslims.

Just as the first amendment of the US Constitution gives Qadiyanis the right to believe and practice as they chose, it also gives Orthodox Muslim leaders the right to make clear that Qadiyani beliefs are contrary to established Islamic theology. To do so is not a form of extremism, but basic preservation of traditional orthodoxy. While Chaudry is free to believe and practice as he chooses, he cannot force Muslim leaders to reject 1,400 years of traditional Islamic scholarship and accept his heretical beliefs as consistent with Islamic theology, or bully them and misrepresent them when they refuse to engage in his intellectual dishonesty. The scholars who presented at the recent “Finale Prophet Conference” did nothing but reiterate well established mainstream Muslim orthodox theology. While the scholar’s intellectually protected and defended traditional Islamic theology, absolutely no one advocated violence, as Chaudry deceivingly misrepresented to further his agenda of defaming Muslim scholars who refuse to legitimize his fringe heretical positions.

Individuals listed below endorse the message above. Maulana Ahsan Khan Maulana Usman Ahsan Mufti Qareeb-ur-Rehman Mufti Shehzad Hussain Hazret Maulana Javid Bhayat Mufti Jawad-ur-Rehman Hazret Mufti Habib-Ur-Rehman Ludhiyanvi Hazret Maulana Rafiq Khan Maulana Omar Khan