Does an equivalence relation on a group play well with the group operation, provided that the equivalence class of the identity is a normal subgroup? Given an equivalence relation $\sim$ on a group $G$, such that
$$
a \sim a' \ \text{ and } \ b \sim b' \ \Longrightarrow \ ab \sim a'b' \ ,
$$
the equivalence class $[e_G]$ of the identity is a normal subgroup of $G$. Moreover,
$a \sim b$ if and only if $ab^{-1} \in [e_G]$. Furthermore, this way we can define an equivalence relation $\sim_H$, which "plays nicely" with the group operation, for any normal subgroup $H$.
I am curious whether the converse statement is true: if an equivalence relation on a group $G$ is such that $[e_G]$ is a normal of subgroup of $G$, then
$$
a \sim a' \ \text{ and } \ b \sim b' \ \Longrightarrow \ ab \sim a'b' \ ?
$$
If not, provide a counterexample. I have spent considerable amount of time thinking about the statement and I think it is false.

An equivalence relation $∼$ on $G$ satisfying the condition
$$
  \text{$a ∼ a'$ and $b ∼ b'$} \implies ab ∼ a' b'
  \qquad
  \text{for all $a, a', b, b' ∈ G$}
$$
is called a congruence relation on $G$.
Given a congruence relation $∼$ on $G$, the equivalence class of $e_G$ with respect to $∼$ is a normal subgroup $N$ of $G$, and the equivalence classes with respect to $∼$ are precisely the cosets with respect to $N$.
We can construct counterexamples to your question as follows:
Let $G$ be any non-simple group.
This means that $G$ admits a normal subgroup $N$ that is neither trivial nor all of $G$.
Let $∼$ be the equivalence relation on $G$ corresponding to the partition
$$
  G = N ∪ \bigcup_{g \notin N} \{ g \} \,.
$$
In other words, all elements of $N$ are equivalent with respect to $∼$, and every element outside of $N$ is equivalent to only itself.
The equivalence class of $e_G$ with respect to $∼$ is $N$, which is a normal subgroup of $G$.
But no other equivalence class of $∼$ is a coset with respect to $N$, because $N$ is non-trivial.
Such a non-coset equivalence class exists because $N$ is a proper subgroup of $G$.
The equivalence relation $∼$ is thus not a congruence relation.
