Intro
I was able to obtain the PHD work (2008)(“Fard Muhammad in Historical Context: An Islamic Thread in the American Religious and Cultural Quilt”) of Dr. Fatimah Fanusie and have written a thorough review herein. In conclusion, Fanusie was biased, academically dishonest and didn’t give any references in key areas like newspapers from Fiji which she allegedly saw. This is a case of a zealous follower of W.D. Muhammad (Elijah Muhammad’s son) attempting to bend history to prove that her religion (NOI) was correct.
It should be noted that on May 10-2012, Fatimah Fanusie boasted about having solved the case of WD Fard (aka Wallace Farad aka Master Fard)(via this same dissertation), and alleged that he was in-fact Maulana Muhammad Abdullah, which was also the belief pioneered by W.D. Muhammad. In the same video, Fanusie (at 2:40) says that Master Fard Muhammad was sent to America on a secret underground Lahori-Ahmadi assignment in 1930 (no refs given, in fact, none of this was verified through any source). At 3:10, Fanusie explains how Wallace Farad (aka Master Fard) claimed to be the Islamic Mahdi and Christian Messiah. At 5:26, Fanusie alleges that there are ‘newspaper articles about an Ahmadiyya missionary arriving in Fiji in 1927 (no refs given in the video, nor does it exist in her dissertation). At 4:10, Fanusie accuses the Lahori-Ahmadi’s of doctoring-up fake documents about Maulana Muhammad Abdullah in 1992 when he died. At 4:24, Fanusie alleges that Maulana Muhammad Abdullah went to Fiji in 1930, but then when you go and look at the actual newspapers and the files in Canberra, Australia, the UK or anywhere else…she then alleges that Indian workers were heavily documented by the British, since they had to be watched for sedition. At 4:51, Fanusie alleges that Maulana Muhammad Abdullah was in Fiji in 1927-1928, but he isn’t there consistently, he then returns in 1934. Which contradicts the official Ahmadiyya (Lahori) records. At 6:00, Fanusie accuses the Lahori-Ahmadi’s of a cover-up job, in terms of when Maulana Muhammad Abdullah arrived in Fiji. Check out my tiktok with combined clips herein. In another video she talks about the same thing, that Lahori-Ahmadis created Elijah Muhammad, at the 4:41 mark.
It should be noted that Dr. Fatimah Fanusie seems to be a religious follower of W.D. Muhammad and his brand of NOI, as opposed to the minister Farrakhan and his sect. She even thanked W.D. Muhammad in her acknowledgements. Thus, her dissertation is a biased attempt to legitimize the teachings and business model of W.D. Muhammad.
In her dissertation, Fanusie alleged that WD Fard=Maulana Muhammad Abdullah and alleged to have perused the Fiji Blue Book for the Year, the Fiji Royal Gazette, the Journal of the Legislative Council of Fiji the Debates of the Legislative Council of Fiji, Report on Education in Fiji, Handbook of the Colony and other published official documents of the British Colonial Government between 1874 and 1944 (See page 305). Fanusie also alleges to have consulted several unpublished official records including the Australian Archives in Canberra and archives of the Home and Territories Department and the Prime Minister’s Department. The Fiji Times and Herald hold similarly relevant information for this research. Collectively these records are surprisingly detailed and often pay close attention to political, social and economic activities of Fiji Indian migrants, particularly the Islamic community. Finally, Fanusie alleges that Muhammad Abdullah may have spent time in several other Pacific Islands as well as Hawaii where the opportunity to observe the exploitation of Indian. However, none of these sources are ever given!
On page 310 of her dissertation, Fanusie alleges that this dissertation suggests the possibility that Fard Muhammad and Muhammad Abdullah were one and the same individual and alleges to have looked at government documents, journals, newspapers, private papers, ship passenger manifests, immigration records, and interviews. However, none of this info was given.
Dr. Fatimah Fanusie did research work in Kolkata, India was facilitated through the U.S.-India Research Initiative, spearheaded by Anita Nahal, whose advice and support was critical in preparatory stages and throughout the duration of the trip. However, it is unclear what she learned from this experience.
Dr. Fatimah Fanusie seems to be trying to prove that the NOI (specifically the teachings of W.D. Muhammad) are within the Islamic framework and should be accepted as an Islamic movement, not a political one (See page 1, “Fard Muhammad in Historical Context: An Islamic Thread in the American Religious and Cultural Quilt” (PhD diss., Howard University, 2008). On page 95, Fanusie argues that Ahmadi’s are Muslims.
Khalid Sheldrake is mentioned 13 times. Alexander Webb is mentioned 72 times. Fanusie mentioned “Dowie” only once (See page 140). Check out my essay on Malcolm X and the Ahmadiyya Movement herein.
In 2024, she connected with a semi-famous Qadiani-Ahmadi named Qasim Rashid and gave him an interview. Check out Yasir Qadhi explaining how Ahmadiyya infiltrated the USA in the 1930’s herein (17:35 timestamp).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
In reality the theory that W.D. Fard =Muhammad Abdullah was only invented in the early-to-mid- 1960’s. This was invented when Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali began asking about W.D. Fard. Thus, Elijah Muhammad (See the testimony of Khalilah Ali) and his son W.D. Muhammad invented the idea that Master Fard=Maulana Muhammad Abdullah. In fact, they even hired Maulana Muhammad Abdullah and put him on their payroll. The wife of Muhammad Ali (aka Cassius Clay) tells us about her interactions with Maulana Muhammad Abdullah and how he told her in a private setting that he was in-fact, Master Fard.
This entire theory was invented because W.D. Fard looked like a white man, however, most Syrians/Lebanese people look European. This would be embarrassing for the NOI, thus, they lied about W.D. Fard and even changed his name to “Master” Fard. Maulana Muhammad Abdullah made Fard into a desi person just to throw off the trail of investigation.
This lie kept going all the way to 2006-2008. In the 2006-2008 era, Fatimah Fanusie, who is a follower of W.D. Muhammad, perpetuated the same lie, in her attempt to substantiate the stupor of her parents and grandparents. Furthermore, newspaper reports from Lahori-Ahmadi newspaper “The Light” proves that in the summer of 1931, Muhammad Abdullah was working as an “Honorary Secretary of the Muslim League of Fiji”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
In the Abstract, Fanusie connects W.D. Fard to Lahori-ism.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 1
Fanusie explains in a footnote how W.D. Fard was not called “Master Fard”, until the 1960’s. Mr.
Farrad Mohammad, Mr. F. Mohammad Ali, Professor Ford, Mr. Wali Farrad, and W.D. Fard. See C. Eric Lincoln, The Black Muslims in America, 3rd edition, (Trenton NJ: Africa World Press, 1994), 12. See also FBI Enclosure 203 of the Main FBI file on Elijah Muhammad.
Fanusie alleges that her research uncovers the Indian Ahmadiyya antecedents of the Nation of Islam, the organization responsible for introducing the largest number of indigenous Americans to Islam during the twentieth century. Ahmadiyya involvement in creating the Nation of Islam illuminates the effects of an Indian Muslim response to both modernity and the social and intellectual crises which Christian communities faced in the modern era. However, she gives no references.
Fanusie argued that Fard Muhammad initiated Islamic growth in the United States using Ahmadiyya, Christian Missionary, Judeo-Christian, and Bengali Muslim missionary techniques. My dissertation will frame the NOI within the wider context of Islamic expansion into non- Muslim societies and bring a global comparative framework to the investigation of Islamic growth in 20th century America.
Dr. Fatimah Fanusie seems to be trying to improve the NOI (specifically the teachings of W.D. Muhammad) are within the Islamic framework and should be accepted as an Islamic movement, not a political one (See page 1, “Fard Muhammad in Historical Context: An Islamic Thread in the American Religious and Cultural Quilt” (PhD diss., Howard University, 2008).
On page 2, Fanusie argues that Ahmadiyya is an Islamic modernist response to Empire in British India. However, this is false, Ahmadiyya is pure Kufr.
On page 3, Fanusie alleges that in addition to exploring the international Islamic antecedents to the Nation of Islam and Fard Muhammad, she is also looking at Fard and the Nation of Islam within the context of American religious development. Conventional scholars have discussed Fard Muhammad and the Nation of Islam as examples of social reform with religious connotations. This study will investigate Fard and the Nation of Islam within the context of American and Islamic religion as social reform.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Methodology
On page 5, Fanusie sets out to examine the Christian missionary presence in British India, and the Ahmadiyya reaction to this presence as the major catalyst for the early twentieth-century inauguration of an Ahmadiyya-initiated Muslim missionary movement to America. Ahmadiyya Islam was a movement developed within a colonized Islamic world serving as both a hostile pressure cooker and a fertile incubator. As the first aggressive Islamic missionary group in America, the Ahmadiyya are noteworthy for their persistence in the face of unlikely success.
On page 6, Fanusie sets out to examine the American religious environment from the perspective of the Ahmadiyya strategists who were excited about the contemporary opening of the American mind to world religions.
On page 6, Fanusie admits that she used information and insight from W.D. Muhammad.
On page 6, Fanusie argues that Fard Muhammad was a persona created by an Ahmadiyya Muslim who, after creating the Lost Found of Nation of Islam then returned to the Ahmadiyya community, in essence never departing from Ahmadiyya beliefs and ideology.
On page 7, Fanusie argues that the Nation of Islam as a deliberate strategy for planting Islam in America.
On page 7, Fanusie admits that her study isn’t about understanding that Islam is!
On page 8, Fanusie argues that Fard’s syncretistic approach to cultivating Islam among African-American southern migrants has unassailable precedent not only among Muslim populations in
general, but also within the specifically Indian context of the eastern region of Bengal, where medieval Sufi mystics popularized a syncretistic version of Islam by supplanting Hindu oral myths and songs with Muslim names and characters.
On page 9, Fanusie argues that Fard relied upon syncretism as a tool, he deviated from his medieval predecessors in critical ways, which ultimately point to the methods and particular
approach of Lahore Ahmadiyya intellectuals and strategists.
On page 10, Fanusie argues that Fard’s rhetoric and programs were aimed at establishing a complete change of mentality, where his followers came to think of themselves as Muslim and reinvent their identity as a people as Muslim. Rather than incorporate Islam into an existing culture kept alive through song, stories and ritual, Fard used Islam to critique the existing culture and make an argument for the vitality and supremacy of Islam as the only way of life to the population he was approaching.
On page 10, Fanusie explained how she examined Fard Muhammad within the context of the Ahmadiyya movement, demonstrating that Fard Muhammad was speaking to the trained religious scholars and other artists of American social, religious, economic and intellectual culture who were deliberately perpetuating a racist mythology.
On page 11, Fanusie confesses that her study is at odds with the understanding of
Fard currently circulating (2000-2008 era) in scholarship on the Nation of Islam and the development of Islam in America.
On page 11, Fanusie confesses that revisionist theory regarding Fard’s identity is based upon critical insight gleaned from speeches and lectures of W.D. Muhammad, and scholarship that explores how Islam has developed historically throughout the world.
On page 12, Fanusie presents her theory that W.D. Fard =Muhammad Abdullah, however, her point of reference is W.D. Muhammad and phantom FBI reports. This is totally unacademic.
Here is the full footnote:
Imam Mohammed and FBI documents both point to the Fiji Islands or South Pacific as a point of departure for Fard Muhammad prior to his arrival in the United States. As recently as the Spring of 2000, Imam Mohammed has given clear and articulate information concerning the identity of W.D. Fard and the direction in which scholars should look in an attempt to flesh out this critical piece of American and world religious, social, and intellectual history. While addressing a gathering of scholars, students, community activists and others at a public address held at the Harvard School of Divinity, Mohammed gave compelling evidence of the Ahmadiyya link to the creation of the Nation of Islam as well as naming one Muhammad Abdullah as the mastermind behind the creation of W.D. Fard. While I hope to uncover the legitimacy or its absence behind all theories circulating regarding the identity of Fard, it is this last theory that I intend to follow in my own efforts to trace the persona and purposes behind the creator of the Nation of Islam. Partially transcribed video of Public Address (both video and transcript are in possession of author), Imam W.D. Mohammed, Islam in America Conference, Harvard University March 2000, Harvard Divinity School.
On page 13, Fanusie argues that Fard Muhammad’s strategy was his own, but this dissertation will effectively link Ahmadiyya logic and strategy to Fard’s own logic and strategy as presented in the ideology, mythology and program of the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam was created by a propagandist who was part of the Ahmadiyya but who developed the Nation of Islam using a variety of other strategies.
On page 13, Fanusie argues that scholars have overlooked Fard Muhammad’s Islamic identity and his relationship to the transnational phenomenon of Ahmadiyya missionaries. The Ahmadiyya labored to insert a cultural mediator into the American religious and cultural scene of the early 1920s. As part of an anti-imperial network that included Pan-African, Pan-Asian and
Pan-Islamic movements, the Ahmadiyya eventually were successful in their efforts to cultivate long-term Islamic growth in the Christian West. Experiencing repeated failure in their multi-racial and white American efforts, Ahmadiyya intellectuals identified Pan- African black liberation thought as a critical platform for cultivating Islamic growth in America.
On page 13, Fanusie argues that Professor C. Eric Lincoln’s The Black Muslims in America which, forty years after its publication, remains the authoritative study of the Nation of Islam.
On page 14, Fanusie explains that with the notable exception of Richard Brent Turner, contemporary scholars have failed to delve beyond citation of the FBI generated story that W. D. Fard/ Fard Muhammad was actually Wallace Ford, a new Zealand immigrant who served a 3 year sentence at San Quentin prison for drug trafficking. According to the FBI, Fard was a semi-literate, career criminal intent on fleecing poorly educated southern migrants. This FBI description of Wallace Ford does not match the erudite, deeply religious mind that crafted the theology and devised the organizational structure of the Nation of Islam.
On pages 14 and 15, Fanusie quotes Beynon. Beynon depicted Fard as a sensationalist figure, responsible for creating the structure and ideology behind the latest hoodoo fascinations in rage among newly arrived migrants in the American mid-west. Beynon had established a paradigm of ‘exotic cult leader’ for interpreting Fard that his successors would continue to utilize for the next forty years.
On page 16, Fanusie explains how C. Eric Lincoln’s seminal 1961 study cites a critical lack of evidence in failing to reach a substantive conclusion as to Fard’s identity. In one sense, Fard’s identity and intentions are a bit irrelevant for Lincoln, as he does not pose the question in his study. He does attempt to outline Fard’s accomplishments during the relatively short span of
time that he openly worked to establish the Nation of Islam between 1930 and June of 1934.
On page 17, Fanusie comments on the study by C. Eric Lincoln and how he didn’t try to find out who Fard was.
On page 18, Fanusie Lincoln’s study remains the single most insightful monograph produced about the Nation of Islam.
On page 19, Fanusie asserts that the two most serious NOI studies within the past decade are biographies on Elijah Muhammad, written by Claude Andrew Clegg and journalist Karl Evanzz. Both authors necessarily delve further into the question of Fard’s identity and religious influences, but utilize the con-artist paradigm for understanding Fard Muhammad at the expense of any substantial inquiry into Fard’s religious, spiritual and intellectual heritage. Neither author approaches Fard as a Muslim thinker.
On page 19, Fanusie quotes Claude Andrew Clegg and his book “Original Man” and write that the Lessons themselves are overwhelmingly dismissed as “preoccupation with large numbers” a strategy for teaching arithmetic and science concepts.
On page 19, Fanusie accuses the studies of Clegg and Evanzz to be primarily upon the FBI con-artist paradigm, these studies attempt to patch together more historically informed narratives of Fard Muhammad based largely upon research stimulated by FBI files on Fard Muhammad and the Nation of Islam.
On page 20, Fanusie quotes the testimony of Hazel Ford and her testimony.
On page 20, Fanusie says, although Clegg presents evidence demonstrating the complexity and richness of Fard’s thinking, and points to a clear influence of Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious texts upon Fard’s writings, Clegg is essentially unable to challenge the existing paradigm. Clegg’s understanding of Fard’s intentions in creating the Nation of Islam is stymied by a failure to approach Fard as a Muslim thinker, strategist or reformer. Surmising that Fard Muhammad’s success hinged upon his effectiveness as con-artist, despite contradicting evidence of countless unsuccessful con-artists in American religious history, Clegg’s analysis of Fard proceeds from an acceptance of what he describes as a “somewhat credible, depiction of his (Fard) background and character (that) emerges from various police-department and FBI inquiries.” This depiction characterizes Fard as a native of New Zealand or Oregon or possible Hawaiian, British, and Polynesian parentage, with “minimal” education and a career as a criminal.
On page 21, Fanusie says that Clegg theorizes that Fard’s potential to gain “thousands of dollars” and build “considerable wealth” from Detroit’s impoverished African American community is key to understanding Fard and his appeal.
On page 22, Fanusie says that a careful perusal of the voluminous body of literature generated by Ahmadiyya intellectuals demonstrates its consistency with Fard’s strategy and method of crafting symbolic religious lore that would at once appeal to folk culture of an unlettered
population, while simultaneously establishing the seeds or platform for mass conversion
to a completely new system of faith. The Ahmadiyya were not unique among Muslims
or other religious strategists in relying upon this strategy, but they are distinct in
emphasizing this as a specific method for cultivating Islam in the Christian west at the
beginning of the twentieth century (See Martin Robert Ahrens, “The Ahmadiyya Movement” MA Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1929, 54-55).
On page 23, Fanusie explains how Evanzz invented the David Ford-El theory.
On page 24, Fanusie writes that while pointing to the FBI-implicated New Zealand nationality for Fard as further evidence of the plausibility of Fard’s Indian heritage, Evanzz does not allow for the implications of an Indian heritage in his own analysis of Fard: an Indian background for
Fard supports an Islamic background for Fard. Evanzz incorporates an understanding of
the role of Indian Diaspora migration patterns in his own effort to understand Fard’s
background. Even as he works to verify the FBI narrative on Fard’s South Pacific
heritage, he develops his own conclusion that Fard’s father was probably an Indian
Muslim.
On page 25, Fanusie alleges that in his discussion of Fard’s ideology, Evanzz attempts to place Fard’s thought within the context of existing historical religious and spiritual explanations for good and evil; in this framework, it is not the concept of the devil incarnated as a human that is
novel, but rather Fard’s blanket condemnation of all white men as the devil. Here Evanzz is unable to extend his framework to include the critical connections between Fard’s symbolic language and logic and the same overtly racist language and logic underpinning American racism and European imperialism.
On page 26, Fanusie references the work of Michael A. Gomez, Black Crescent: The Experience and Legacy of African Muslims in the Americas, (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 277-287.
On page 27, Fanusie explains how Ansari adopted the argument of Imam Wallace Mohammed who had identified Fard as Muhammad Abdullah, an Ahmadiyya missionary in the Fiji Islands in 1981. Ansari did not engage in substantial research to support Imam Wallace Mohammed’s narrative of Fard and the Nation of Islam, and it took a decade for another scholar to address these issues raised by Ansari. When Richard Brent Turner interviewed Muhammad Abdullah during the late 1980s, Abdullah dismissed Z. I. Ansari’s identification of him as Fard. Case Closed.
On page 28,
On page 41, Fanusie writes falsely about Ahmadiyya. The Ahmadiyya Movement was created by British Intelligence as a means to monitor reform movements in British-India.
On pages 52-54, she mentions Pfander.
On page 60, Fanusie mentioned Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi.
On page 95, Fanusie argues that Ahmadi’s are Muslims.
On page 100, Fanusie mentions Fateh Muhammad Sial (aka F.M. Sayal) and his essay in the ROR of Jan-1915.
On page 102, Fanusie quoted Maulvi Sher Ali.
On page 105, Fanusie mentioned Maulvi Muhammad Amin and his trek into Bukhara (Soviet Union) as an Ahmadi missionary.
On page 108, Fanusie quoted Mufti Muhammad Sadiq and his essay in the April-1910 edition of the ROR.
On page 120, Fanusie quoted Martin Robert Ahrens, “The Ahmadiyya Movement”, MA Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1929. Fanusie mentions Baddomalhi, the small city wherein Maulana Muhammad Abdullah worked.
On page 168, Fanusie quoted Chi, Tony Poon-Chiang, “A Case Study of the Missionary Stance of the Ahmadiyya Movement in North America”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1973, pages 19-21, 28-32, 53-58.
On page 169, Fanusie mentioned Alexander Webb and MGA’s interaction with him. Fanusie makes a mistake and write that the ROR is a Lahori-Ahmadi only publication.
On page 170, Fanusie hypothesizes 4 stages of development of the Ahmadiyya Movement in the USA.
On pages 171 and 172, Fanusie doesn’t understand that Review of Religions is a Qadiani periodical and the Islamic Review is the opposite, a Lahori-Ahmadi periodical.
On page 172, Fanusie quotes Gomez’s note that MSTA lore that “one Abdul Wali Farad
Muhammad Ali, “A mysterious teacher of Islam from the East” arrived in Newark to teach Drew Ali Islam as early as 1913, (See 214; Turner, Islam and the African-American Experience, 92-93, en. No. 56;) Turner emphasizes that the earlier dates of 1913 and 1914 are extracted from MSTA legend rather than substantiated by official documentation.
On page 174, Fanusie mentioned “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam”, the 1912 edition, which appeared in the ROR of 1912. Fanusie also mentioned Alexander Webb and now gives his full story. She writes, “”Indeed the Moslem Sunrise, the Ahmadiyya American-based journal established in 1920, was influenced by Webb’s 1893 journal, The Moslem World””.
On page 179, Fanusie quoted “An Address to the Educated Muhammadans”, the Review of Religions, February 1912, 59.
On page 180, Fanusie quoted an Ahmadi, M. Ataur Rahman, The Rational Ground for Quranic Teachings”, Review of Religions, Volume XV, February 1916, No. 2, 61-65. See also Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya, (Proofs of Ahmad) translated by Muhammad ‘Ali, (Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam, 1955), 48-64.
On page 185-188, Fanusie talks about the “Review of Religions” and the “Islamic Review” as 2 Ahmadiyya newspapers which brought Ahmadiyya to the West. Fanusie said yet both publications clearly illustrate an increasing sense of frustration among Ahmadiyya Muslims as they failed to make the expected inroads among white Americans.
On page 190, Fanusie mentions George Baker.
On page 193, Fanusie quoted “Opinions on the Teachings on Islam”, The Review of Religions, July 1912Volume XI NO. 7, 290.
On pages 196-197, Fanusie quoted the earliest editions of the Moslem Sunrise. Fanusie alleges, that, in fact, Ahmadiyya strategists appear to have expected greater success among Christians in America because of the manner in which new prophets appeared to flourish in urban centers throughout the country. Pointing to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s thoughts on the need for new prophecy, Muhammad Sadiq observed…
On page 200, Fanusie quoted Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, “Civilisation: Islam and Christianity”, Islamic Review and Muslim India, 1914, 46.
On page 201, Fanusie quoted “Jesus in the Holy Quran”, Review of Religions, December 1913, 503.
On page 202, Fanusie said, “”Ahmadiyya divines maintained that American social and political culture provided a further argument against Christianity’s ability to provide the spiritual
salvation needed in the modern world, particularly because of its tendency to uphold
rather than challenge the existing cultural and racial apartheid in American society.
Pointing to the scientific critique of the Bible, Ahmadiyya Muslims felt certain that they
were in position to reap favorable results in their campaign to cultivate Islam in Europe
and America in the decades leading up to and into the twentieth century””.
On page 203, Fanusie said, “”It is difficult to find a more organized, consistent and aggressive appeal to Christian Americans and Europeans to reexamine their religious convictions then that
issued by Ahmadiyya Muslims between 1890 and 1930 in the pages of the Lahoreaffiliated Ahmadiyya Muslims’ Review of Religions and Islamic Review where Ahmadiyya writers drew from Christian critique of Christian deviance and support of Islamic clarity and truth as an example for humanity.
On pages 204-205, Fanusie quoted an article by Khalid Sheldrake, “Islam – a Perfect Brotherhood”, Islamic Review and Muslim India, (1914), 488.
On page 206, Fanusie quoted “The Dying Forces of Which- Christianity or Islam?” Islamic Review, Volume II, No. 5. June 1914, 212-216.
On page 207, Fanusie noted how Ahmadi’s sent their English newspapers all over the world. James Martin Peebles, a nonagenarian who eventually passed a few days prior to his one hundredth birthday in 1922, contributed an article to a 1913 edition of the Islamic Review where he expressed his appreciation for the journal and profusely thanked the journal’s editors for sending copies to him in the United States (See James M. Peebles, “A Most Warlike Religion”, Islamic Review, June 1914 Volume II No. 5, 220-223).
On page 209, Fanusie said that the Qadian and Lahore Ahmadiyya initiatives outlined above affected the religious and spiritual landscape in America in three distinct ways over the first three decades of the twentieth century: the establishment of small Ahmadiyya Muslim communities in the American urban mid-west and northeast regions; the wide dissemination of Islamic propaganda among a cultured and highly literate segment of the American readership public and the development of Islamic awareness and proclivity towards Islamic culture among African Americans.
On page 210, Fanusie said that Despite the monumental differences between the Lahore and Qadian factions in both orientation and strategy, between 1900 and 1930, Ahmadiyya Muslims collectively were the Muslims most active in shaping the Islamic role in the diverse global movements responding to changing international relationships in the early twentieth century.
On page 211, Fanusie mentioned the work of Eric Germain. Fanusie said that Alexander Webb, Abdullah Quilliam and Hajee Abdulla Browne literally provided Ahmadiyya Muslims with a blueprint for engaging Americans and Europeans with Islam between 1893 and 1908. Fanusie also mentioned Sheikh William Henry Abdullah Quilliam.
On page 212, Fanusie says that networking was an important part of the AAII strategic approach to cultivating Islam in America. This branch of the movement appeared to thrive on the internationally placed contacts with Muslims in strategic locations or with access to strategic populations in European and American societies. Fanusie also mentioned F.L. Anderson.
On page 213, Fanusie mentions the academic work of James Thayer Addison (1929). Charles Sievwright is also mentioned. Sievwright, who eventually settled in San Diego, California wrote to Muhammad ‘Ali throughout his entire journey and upon arriving in California immediately wrote to ‘Ali of his plans to establish an Islamic mission in the United States (“A New Muslim Missionary in America” The Review of Religions, September 1906, pp. 362-362 quotation, 362).
That the Ahmadiyya supported Sievwright’s effort is clear as Muhammad ‘Ali used the Review of Religions to call for financial assistance to Sievwright and provided readers with a San Diego address where remittances could be sent.
On Page 214, Fanusie explains how Sievwright was in California as early as 1906 and working the Ahmadiyya angle.
On page 215, Fanusie says that by the end of the 1920s, at least one American Christian theologian was openly expressing alarm and singling out the Lahore group of Ahmadiyya for sneaky and deceptive ways and for deliberately committing themselves to manipulative tactics for cultivating Islamic growth in America.
On page 216, Fanusie quoted the academic work of Addison and explained how the Lahori’s were more deceptive in their techniques.
On page 217, Fanusie mentioned how Mufti Muhammad Sadiq was sent to the USA in 1920.
On page 219, Fanusie says that the Ahmadiyya missionary approach to Americans departed radically from its activities in England and throughout Europe. The Ahmadiyya U.S. based journal, the Moslem Sunrise, similarly departed from the tone and type of discussion which occurred in the Review of Religions. Ahmadiyya journal articles titles such as “America’s Intolerance” were reflective of a growing sense of Ahmadiyya disillusionment with American society (Ali, “America’s Intolerance”, 158, by Maulvi Sher Ali).
On page 220, Fanusie writes how Ahmadi’s were progressively focused upon African Americans, who in many instances were promoting “increasingly stringent criticism of Christianity as a “clan religion” for whites which needed to be preserved by blacks” Saddiq and other Ahmadiyya writers in the Review of Religions and Moslem Sunrise journals denounced Christianity, but more specifically, their embittered arguments began challenging African American adherence to Christianity. Rather than preserve Christianity, Ahmadiyya Muslims began making the argument that African Americans ought to “abandon Christianity for a racially tolerant religion, Islam.”
On page 221, Fanusie said that Ahmadi’s were the first group to publicly “identify the Western missionary enterprise as a cover for the enslavement of indigenous peoples” while simultaneously linking this to their own experiences as Indian’s. Ahmadiyya literature under Qadian Ahmadiyya aegis increasingly emphasized Christianity as a religion that promoted racism, and Islam as a religion of truth, freedom, justice and equality, Ahmadiyya approach to African Americans continued to emphasize a multi-racial vision and mission of Islam as a universal religion. Fanusie also quoted Robert Didier, “Those Who’re Missionaries to Christians” [sic], in the Moslem Sunrise, 1 October 1922, 139-140.
On page 222, Fanusie connected Ahmadiyya to the African American UNIA and the Garveyites.
On page 224, Fanusie mentioned Sheik Ahmad Din and Wali Abdul Akram.
On page 225, Fanusie says that despite high expectations, Ahmadiyya did not immediately make the type of progress they had anticipated in the United States and would fashion a creative range of propaganda that included satirical commentary and bitter lecturing as well as courteous and insightful discussion. Ahmadiyya intellectuals’ initial appeal was directed to the higher echelons of European and American society because of the role the elite drivers of any given society assume in providing or denying opportunity to the people at large.
On page 230, Fanusie explained how the 1917 Asian exclusion act arrived by way of the 1923 Supreme Court decision in United States vs. Bhagat Singh Thind which established that Indians who had formerly won legal access to the status of white Americans based upon the Caucasian heritage could no longer be legally identified as white people in America.
On page 231, Fanusie explained how under the leadership of the Qadian based Khalifa Mahmud Ahmad, the Ahmadiyya sent over 2000 mailings to various Americans (including well-known leaders and celebrities, and the President of the United States Warren Harding) and at least one thousand pieces of their literature to major American libraries and Masonic temples (See Turner, Islam in the African-American Experience, 21).
On page 238, Fanusie mentioned Dusé Mohamed Ali and Khwaja Kamaluddin. Fanusie alleged that Khwaja Kamaluddin taught Islam to Dusé Mohamed Ali who then taught Marcus Garvey, this can also be found in her dissertation (see page 238). Fanusie quoted Ian Duffield, “Duse Mohamed Ali and the Development of Pan-Africanism, 1866-1945”, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1971, 420-425. The young Marcus Garvey, then studying in London from Jamaica, frequently visited Ali’s Fleet Street office and was mentored by him David Dabydeen, John Gilmore, Cecily Jones (eds), The Oxford Companion to Black British History, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 25). Garvey briefly worked for Ali and contributed an article to the journal’s October 1913 issue of the African Times and Orient Review.
On page 239, Fanusie alleges that for the discerning, initiated reader, careful perusal of Pan-African Duse Mohamed Ali’s African Times and Orient Review (1912-1918) and Marcus Garvey’s Negro World (1921-1933) provides evidence of Ahmadiyya, Pan-African, Pan-Asian and Pan-Islamic intersecting spheres of influence in a religious-reformist network that
stretched from India and the South Pacific to England, North America and the Caribbean.
My research suggests that an Ahmadiyya strategy for implementing a proto-Islamic
agenda onto an existing indigenous platform grew out of this interaction. Where scholars
have detected “parallel streams of development” between Fard’s NOI, Drew Ali’s MSTA
and Garvey’s UNIA, the Pan-Islamic influences also point to Ahmadiyya interception or
points of contact with each organization prior to its’ official establishment (See Gomez).
On page 240, Fanusie alleges that what is clear is that Noble Drew Ali was responding to elements of Islam introduced into American society by Ahmadiyya Muslims. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s media debates with the highly controversial “Dr.” Alexander Dowie were well publicized in American and Indian press during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Ahmadiyya Muslims were traveling and living in the United States in New York, New Jersey, and California during the first two decades of the twentieth century. Alexander Russell Webb was similarly influenced by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and arguably convinced to learn more about Islam because of Ahmad’s correspondence and advice. Early Ahmadiyya interaction with American religious culture had convinced Ahmadiyya intellectuals that American society was ripe for Islamic cultivation. Noble Drew Ali’s Moorish Science Temple of America emerged six years after the arrival of the first official Ahmadiyya Muslim missionary in America, and twenty-five years after the first Ahmadiyya correspondence with American society. This overlooked detail is
important for several reasons, particularly when juxtaposed against Ahmadiyya interest in
Pan-African, anti-colonial and Pan-Islamic culture as vehicles for cultivating Islamic
growth throughout the world; a pursuit which preceded both Drew Ali’s documented as
well as alleged organizational activities in New Jersey and Detroit between 1914 and
1926.
On page 242, Fanusie alleges that even the Qadiani Ahmadiyya, by 1930 had experienced the limitations of their efforts after ten years of open and aggressive missionary work in California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and other populated regions of the country. Within these states Ahmadiyya missionaries had spent considerable energy in Chicago, Boston, and New York City, home to some of the most progressive, liberal and religiously open-minded American populations, yet had failed to make notable inroads among them.
On page 243, Fanusie alleges that by 1930, there was really no reason for the Ahmadiyya Anjuman-i- Islamiyya to set up a mosque or mission in the United States as it had done in important cities throughout Euro-Asia. The strategy of appealing to enlightened Americans simply was not meeting Ahmadiyya expectations. Other non-Christian religious traditions from the East had similarly failed to make significant advancement among Americans, at least not on their own terms.
On page 245, Fanusie alleges that WD Fard=Maulana Muhammad Abdullah. She also writes, The 1888 – 1902 stage of correspondence between Ghulam Ahmad and the American literati had catalyzed the Islamic presence in the World Parliament of Religions, and stirred the false hope that Islam would be embraced by progressive American thinkers as the ideal religion of modernity. The literary mission led by Muhammad Ali and Khawaj Kamal-ud-Din had engaged both European-American and African-American thinkers without sparking a movement to Islam among the literati. A third stage of direct missionary work spearheaded from 1920-1922 by Mufti Muhammad Sadiq was the first American Ahmadiyya effort to draw an appreciable pool of converts. Quite significantly for the future of the American mission of the Ahmadiyya, this success was among poor African American migrants to the big cities of the north.
On page 247, Fanusie alleges that the Lahori-Ahmadi’s headed by the internationally respected and erudite Indian thinkers Muhammad ‘Ali and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, the Ahmadiyya Anjuman quickly earned a reputation as the covert and sneaky faction of the Ahmadiyya movement.
On page 248, Fanusie quoted “Maulana Muhammad Ali- The Greatest of All”, p. 12 (via The Islamic Review, vol. 1, no. 1, [Oct. 1980]). However, this isn’t available to me. In this article Lahori editors and writers alleged that The Nation of Islam, in U.S.A., is a living evidence of his
efforts, as it was his English translation of the Holy Qur’an which was presented by Fard Muhammad to His Excellency Elijah Muhammad and resulted in transforming the lives of hundreds of thousands of persons through his movement…It can be said without fear of contradiction that Maulana Muhammad Ali’s writings were the major source of information about Islam in the West in the major part of this century.
On page 249, Fanusie quoted Shaikh Sharif Ahmad, A Retrospective Look at the Ahmadiyya Movement”, 9-10 and alleged that Shaikh Sharif Ahmad credited Maulana Nur ud Din, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Khawaj Kamal ud Din, Maulana Sadr ud Din, Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi and Khawaja Nazir Ahmad with providing the intellectual leadership of the Ahmadiyya movement, and characterized them as “luminaries who have spread the light of Islam far and wide through their literary works.”
On page 250, Fanusie alleges that W.D. Fard Muhammad and his Nation of Islam must be interpreted within the framework of the Ahmadiyya Anjuman and through the analytical tool of religious syncretism.
On page 253, Fanusie alleges that while not within the scope of my current research, this topic is directly relevant and it might be reasonably theorized that Ahmadiyya Muslims attempted to influence Drew Ali. See page 240, fn no. 445 of this dissertation. Also, Susan Nance, “Mystery of the Moorish Science Temple: Southern Blacks and American Alternative Spirituality in 1920s Chicago” in Religion and American Culture, Volume 12 No. 2 (Summer, 2002), 123-166. However, nothing new is found therein.
On page 255, Fanusie alleges that the specificities of a distinctly Ahmadiyya Muslim position as opposed to that of Sunni orthodoxy provides more insight into Fard’s religious and intellectual heritage as a Muslim. Because scholarship has not taken this step, it has overwhelmingly condemned the Nation of Islam as having little to do with Islam and concluded that it could not possibly be a product of a Muslim mind. Scholars have also pointed towards Elijah Muhammad’s unfavorable view of Sunni Muslims and countries throughout the Islamic world as further evidence of the implausibility of the authentic Islamic initiation behind the Nation of Islam. Again this view ignores the Ahmadiyya position that much of the ‘Ulema class had betrayed their Muslim populations and disintegrated into corruption.
On page 258, Fanusie alleges that efforts to locate an Islamic identity for Fard should naturally begin with the Ahmadiyya movement, which discloses verifiable ties to Fard Muhammad and the Nation of Islam, especially when considered within the framework of the four known stages of Ahmadiyya engagement with American religious culture.
On page 263, Fanusie is desperately trying to connect WD Fard with Maulana Muhammad Abdullah.
On page 264, Fanusie alleges that by 1931, Fard had presented himself to all his students as the Muslim Mahdi and Christian messiah.
On page 267, Fanusie alleges that Ahmadi’s credit Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with discovering the identity of the Dajjal discussed in Qur’an and Hadith which had eluded Muslim scholars and thinkers for centuries. Prior to Mirza Ahmad’s public announcement in 1881, Muslims only knew that the Dajjal was an Anti-Christ who would be defeated by the second coming of the Messiah and that the Dajjal lived among the Gog and Magog people who were defined by their obstinacy to the will of G-d and their powerful material and military might. In his publication Izlahah Auham, Ahmad stated that the Anti-Christ would come from the Church itself and reminded his readers of the folly of literal interpretation of the Hadith mentioning the Dajjal.
On page 271, Fanusie alleged that Fard established an Islamic identity for his Temple of Islam students which repudiated the concept of military jihad as it was interpreted among the scholars of Sunni orthodoxy. Eschewing the notion that violent struggle had any legitimate place in a religion of peace, Fard promoted jihad or struggle against disbelief through words and ideas. One of Fard’s earliest converts expounded upon his repudiation of military jihad as it was explained to him by Fard in 1934.
On page 272, Fanusie alleged that these striking similarities between Nation of Islam positions regarding prophecy and jihad and those advanced by Ahmadiyya Muslims help to establish an ideological link between the organizations. Moreover, the Nation of Islam was the first organization oriented towards Islam to accept the Ahmadiyya position.
On page 274, Fanusie alleged that in conducting his mission to America, Fard Muhammad was interested in secrecy. In contrast to the Qadiani Ahmadiyya missionary Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, Fard began his American missionary career without portfolio or credentials. Although the clandestine nature of his mission precluded Fard from making overt reference to the Ahmadiyya beliefs, his approach was nonetheless rooted in Ahmadiyya Missionary tradition and intellectual heritage.
On page 278, Fanusie alleged that Fard appointed the couple’s seventh son Wallace while in utero, as the future leader of the movement and advised them that the Qur’an was the true prize for the Muslim who freed himself from the constraints of mental bondage in America (Via W.D. Mohammed, As the Light Shineth from the East: Chicago: WDM Publications, 1982).
On page 281, Fanusie alleged that despite Fard’s method of introducing an Islamic term and understanding of the Creator through a Trinitarian concept of the divine, he emphasized the supremacy and infallibility of G-d’s guidance over that of man, an approach quite similar to that taken by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Ahmadiyya intellectuals.
On page 284, Fanusie alleged that Fard structured his religious amalgamate in such a way as to ensure that the two fundamental issues on which Ghulam Ahmad reproached the perpetuators of Sunni orthodoxy were carried over to the new syncretistic understanding of Islam given to his initial Temple of Islam students. These were Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s repudiation of the concept of military jihad and a bloody Mahdi and Ahmad’s interpretation of the nature and fluidity of prophecy. Ahmad’s reasoning that jihad meant struggle waged through writing and speech and his belief that G-d would always appoint prophets to people has direct bearing on Fard’s own presentation of himself as the Muslim Mahdi and the Christian Messiah to Elijah Muhammad. While Ghulam Ahmad made these same claims as part of an appeal which emphasized Islam as a universal way of life and the ultimate goal and natural state of every people searching for spiritual guidance, Fard Muhammad operated after Ahmadiyya Muslims had been attempting to influence American religious life for almost half a century with little progress.
On page 287, Fanusie alleged that where the Ahmadiyya had failed to convince liberal Christians that Islam was the spiritual and intellectual solution to religious dilemmas of modernity, W.D. Fard presented his carefully constructed amalgam within the framework of both evangelical Christian and alternative Christian solutions to modernity.
On page 294, Fanusie alleged that Ahmadiyya relied upon the strategy of assuming a false identity to allow their missionaries free access to Soviet Central Asian society. When examining the Ahmadiyya with this type of strategy in mind, the aliases of Fard Muhammad take on another meaning.
On page 305, Fanusie alleged to have perused the Fiji Blue Book for the Year, the Fiji Royal Gazette, the Journal of the Legislative Council of Fiji the Debates of the Legislative Council of Fiji, Report on Education in Fiji, Handbook of the Colony and other published official documents of the British Colonial Government between 1874 and 1944. I have also consulted several unpublished official records including the Australian Archives in Canberra and archives of the Home and Territories Department and the Prime Minister’s Department. The Fiji Times and Herald hold similarly relevant information for this research. Collectively these records are surprisingly detailed and often pay close attention to political, social and economic activities of Fiji Indian migrants, particularly the Islamic community. Finally, Muhammad Abdullah may have spent time in several other Pacific Islands as well as Hawaii where the opportunity to observe the exploitation of Indian. However, none of these sources are ever given!
On page 310, Fanusie alleges that this dissertation suggests the possibility that Fard Muhammad and Muhammad Abdullah were one and the same individual and alleges to have looked at government documents, journals, newspapers, private papers, ship passenger manifests, immigration records, and interviews. However, none of this info was given.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2024 Interview with Qasim Rashid
In this interview, Qasim Rashid continues his kissing up and cooning to get attention. What is interesting is that he even kisses up to black folx in his attempt to make a name for himself and get elected to congress or senate. Interestingly, Fatima Fanusie wrote extensively about Master Fard Muhammad being a Lahori-Ahmadi on a secret mission, however, Qasim Rashid never dared to ask him anything.
4:10, she is the premier scholar on the pioneering role of the Ahmadiyya Movement and African Americans in the development of Islam in America (this is a lie).
They talk about Juneteenth!
at about 14:00, Fatimah Fanusie speaks about Ahmadiyya persecution.
At about 18:00, Qasim Rashid asserts that there are less African-American Muslims in America in 2024 than there was in the 19th century (50-100 years ago).
at 21:02, Fanusie mentions how only the Ahmadiyya Movement sent missionaries to America, however, there were a few unorganized Muslims who were preaching like Duse Muhammad Ali.
At 22:10 she alleges that Duse Muhammad Ali learned from Khwaja Kamaluddin (a famous Lahori-Ahmadi).
23:30, what role did Muslims play in the civil rights movement.
26:40, Fanusie says that only Ahmadi’s focused on bringing Islam to African Americans. She alleged that Islam came from Ahmadi missionaries, that is a farce, it was pseudo Islam, a racist Islam wherein the colonizer was to obeyed!
31:44, they begin talking about Jazz musicians and how some of them were Muslim. Qasim Rashid mentions Ahmad Jamal and Yusuf Lateef.
32:25, Qasim Rashid mentions the Qadiani-Ahmadi Maulvi Sufi Muti-ur-Rahman Bengali, who was working in America in 1931. However, I (Afcb) have never seen any of these refs.
At 33:30, Qasim Rashid mentions “
At 36:50, Fanusie alleges that the Ahmadiyya Movement focused their efforts on converting African-Americans.
At 37:20, Qasim Rashid mentions Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, he alleges that the residential building on Wabash was a mosque, it wasn’t. Qasim Rashid lied and said whites, blacks and latino’s were there and worshipping together, this is a total lie, it was 99% African-Americans. Qasim Rashid mentions the “Jim Crow Era”, however, he forgets that Ahmadi’s never helped African-American’s in the civil rights movement or in any public protests.
At 39:30, Fanusie says that Ahmadis played the most pivotal role in the development of Islam in America. Fanusie also brought up “Old Islam in Detroit: Rediscovering the Muslim American Past” (1st edition) by
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
Fatimah Fanusie | Islamic Studies | Johns Hopkins University
Who is Charles F. Sievwright and his sexual connections to Qadian and brown women?
The Ahmadiyya Movement and its Western Propaganda by James Thayer Addison (1929)
“The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam”-book review – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
The history of #Ahmadiyya in #Baddomalhi, Pakistan – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Who is Maulvi Sher Ali? (1875-1947) – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Who is Mufti Muhammad Sadiq (1872-1957)? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
In 1835, Pfander said that Eisa (as) was dead and called his physical return a contradiction
Who is Syed Muhammad Hussain Batalvi? 1840-1920 – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Who is David Ford-El? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warith_Deen_Mohammed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Fard_Muhammad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali
Khalid Sheldrake and the Ahmadiyya Movement? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Muhammad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan
Was Anthony George Baker a Qadiani-Ahmadi? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Alexander Russel Webb was an EX-Ahmadi in 1891 – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Alexander Russel Webb was an EX-Ahmadi in 1891 – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Dusé Mohamed Ali and Khawaja Kamaluddin – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
Qasim Rashid interviewed Fatimah Fanusie in 2024 – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam #mirzaghulamahmad
8 Pingback