If the claim is 'If my religion is true there will be criticism. There is criticism, therefore my religion is true', then it is a case of affirming the consequent.
Affirming the consequent is saying 'If claim A is true then result B is true. As result B is true, then A is true'. This is a fallacy as it assumes that A must be the only cause of B. In the example above, the religious person assumes that the only possible reason criticism can exist is that his/her religion is true, ignoring other possible causes such as good thinking.
It took me a while to identify the central fallacy, as affirming the consequent in the case that the consequent is criticism spawns many other fallacies. Making criticism of your claim proof of your claim means dismissing criticism on the grounds that your claim is true, which is simultaneously special pleading and circular reasoning.
I am not quite sure if there is a specific name for when the consequent is criticism from just anybody. If it is cricism from the establishment particularly, then it is the Galileo gambit (I do not have enough reputation yet to post more than 2 links, but you can just search for the fallacies on the website I've linked to above). Of course, the Galileo gambit is very often accompanied by the Shill gambit, which is when you accuse any random critic of working for a corrupt establishment/conspiracy. While the Galileo+Shill gambit is often just called pig-headedness, I propose that we should start calling it the California kale gambit after this poem: http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2015/02/17/how-i-know-im-right/