A Twitter conversation with Ahmadi Muslim Zubair Ahmed (@Zubair7) made for some interesting Islamic apologetics. Unable to offer a cogent rebuttal to my discussion of the Ant-Men of Qur’an 27:17-18 , Zubair began to invent novel explanations that defy credulity.

The section of my treatise discussing the Ant-Men of the Qur’an, begins as follows:

The very start of my Twitter thread with Zubair starts here, where I cite a Lahori Ahmadiyya web page making a compelling comparison between a warning from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and a quote from his son who effectively walks into his father’s trap.

However, the bulk of the conversation drifts into the Qur’anic chapter ‘Ants’, or Surah al-Naml. I’ve pointed out in my treatise, how the magical reference to Solomon talking to ants in the Qur’an cannot reasonably be taken to mean that Solomon was talking to men who’s tribe named happened to be called ‘Ants’.

To salvage the Qur’an, and thus Islam and Ahmadiyyat, Zubair suggests that the talking ants in Surah al-Naml are metaphorical events depicted in dreams, even though the passage doesn’t imply or mention dreams.

Here’s the timestamp for that key tweet:

Almost four hours later, Zubair switches back to a real tribe of humans called ‘Ants’, suggesting that since there’s a book in Arabic that refers to a valley or spring of the ants, that this implies possession, and only human beings posses territory! Therefore, the Qur’an was telegraphing to us all along, that these ‘Ants’ were really a bunch of humans, because they owned land!

Zubair fails to realize of course, that plenty of animal species dominate and “own” areas of land. If a valley was infested with ants, we could readily admit that these ants owned the land.

The desperation here is amusing. And sad. This is what indoctrination does to people. They start with a conclusion, and attempt to defend it at all costs, no matter how silly they look or how frequently they have to throw everything at the wall to see what might stick—changing their tune and their arguments mere hours apart from one another.

What’s next, a dream of a metaphor about a dream? Is this how Ahmadi Muslims will attempt to wriggle out of the next set of critiques?

To be fair, I don’t think any seasoned Ahmadi Muslim apologist would have suggested the convoluted arguments this fellow has. They have likely messaged him privately, advising him to stand down before Ahmadiyya apologetics look even more amateurish.

What’s the proper Ahmadi Muslim way to deal with my treatise on the Ant-Men of Surah Al-Naml demonstrated by seasoned Jama’at apologists? Why, silence of course!