Following a woman who refers to herself as “the anti-cult hero of the digital age,” “The Guardian” and other British media slandered the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light.
by Massimo Introvigne
Alarming accounts have emerged about a dangerous “cult.” Its leader claims he is always right when he imparts teachings about theology or moral behavior, and dissent would lead to expulsion. Some of the cult’s beliefs are strange if not ridiculous. Devotees even gather to eat what they claim are bodily parts of the long-deceased founder. Many of them believe that the ghost of the founder’s mother appears to children. Some female believers live in communities where they are allowed to communicate with non-members only rarely and through a grille that prevents visitors from fully seeing them.
Before continuing, I should make the shocking confession that I am a member of that “cult.” It is called the Roman Catholic Church. Its theology teaches that the Pope is infallible when speaking authoritatively about faith and morals. Those who question the dogma of infallibility risk excommunication. During the Mass, we believe that we eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus, not symbolically or metaphorically but really, although mysteriously. Most Catholics, including the Pope, believe in the reality of apparitions of the Virgin Mary to young children in places such as Lourdes or Fatima. I had two aunts who were cloistered Benedictine nuns. Relatives were rarely allowed to visit them, and they were barely visible behind their grille.
There are a few anti-Catholic secular humanists or fundamentalist Protestants who still publish articles claiming all these doctrines and behaviors prove that Catholicism is a “cult.” They are usually condemned as bigots. No serious newspaper would publish their ramblings.
However, smaller or newer religions are fair game. If they believe in doctrines that to a non-believer would appear just as strange as the Catholic “real presence” of Jesus’ body in the host or Marian apparitions, this is offered as evidence that their followers are victims of brainwashing. If their leaders claim to be infallible on some issues, just as the Pope does, they are described as spiritual predators. Serious newspapers publish attacks against minority religions they would be ashamed of printing if they were directed against Catholicism, Judaism, or Islam—without realizing that the doctrines of mainline religions would appear just as strange as those of these smaller groups to those who would encounter them for the first time.
One egregious example of this bigotry and double standard is the campaign currently taking place in the United Kingdom against AROPL, the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, a Shia-derivative religion not to be confused with the Sunni-derivative Ahmadiyya community currently persecuted in Pakistan. Those wanting to know more about AROPL can read the series of five articles “Bitter Winter” devoted to it.
We routinely receive emails from Iran promoting the slander against the AROPL spread by Iran’s ecclesiastical establishment, which regards the group as dangerously heretic, and the Islamic Republic’s intelligence services. We ignore them, although to be on the safer side we contact the police when the mails include threats of violence, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly common.
Presumably, anti-cultists receive the same material from Iran and are just happy to add another group to their laundry list of “cults.” One that started a campaign against AROPL is a lady called Be Scofield. Anti-cultism is a lucrative business—France just announced another Euro 800,000 it will give to private anti-cult activists—but the market is highly competitive. To be noticed, Be Scofield introduces herself as “the anti-cult hero of the digital age,” although so far few have taken her seriously.
One who did is a journalist from “The Guardian,” who on July 1 published an assault on AROPL largely based on the Scofield material. Between July 2 and 4, the article in “The Guardian” was followed by similar journalism in “Vice,” “The Telegraph,” and “The Daily Mail.” When one newspaper discovers a “cult,” others cannot ignore it and risk to appear less informed. Nothing resembles more an anti-cult article than another anti-cult article against the same target, and all the anti-AROPL articles are based on the one by Scofield.
All of these articles share the same methodological flaw: they rely on information from hostile ex-members that sociologists refer to as “apostates.” The term “apostate” is not meant as an insult, nor is it identical to “ex-member.” Sociologists of religion use it to describe those who have left their faith and become vocal critics of it. Empirical evidence shows that apostates constitute a tiny minority; most ex-members have no interest in waging crusades against their former beliefs and are not apostates.
These media outlets would not publish an article about the status of the Catholic priesthood based solely on interviews with disgruntled ex-priests, nor would they focus exclusively on a public figure based on the claims of an ex-spouse in a contentious divorce. However, they often do so when the subject is a minority religion they consider having unusual beliefs.
Indeed, as these articles note, members of AROPL attribute a form of infallibility to their leader. Some of their beliefs may seem strange to Westerners unfamiliar with esoteric Shiism, and they do engage in forms of home-schooling. Apostates have shared alarming but unverified accounts about them, and in countries like Sweden, where refugees from the Middle East may not be welcomed, police have labeled them a “cult” to push them to leave and seek refuge elsewhere.
Nonetheless, the reporters neglected to consult members who lead fulfilling lives within AROPL or academic experts who have studied the group. Journalists did not question the reliability of the apostates they cited or consider the impact of Iranian disinformation behind the negative portrayals. Accusations of violating school and health regulations, as well as more serious allegations, such as involvement in the disappearance of a German member who traveled to India, have never resulted in any prosecution or conviction.
Unfortunately, this one-sided journalism is unlikely to be curbed by critiques from scholars or human rights activists. Those disseminating such narratives should consider the question “cui bono?”—who benefits? Slander published in the West can be used against innocent believers in countries such as Iran, Somalia, Kenya, and Malaysia, where AROPL members have faced detention or been killed. Their safety may also be at risk in the UK, where radical Islamic scholars have called for violence against them.
Given the ongoing persecution of AROPL members in several nations, publishing slanderous articles only exacerbates the situation and empowers their Iranian persecutors. This does not align with responsible journalism.
Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio. From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.
