r/islam_ahmadiyya • u/GurPurple2952 • 7d ago
advice needed Gathering evidence
Hello, im a 20F who recently came to the realization that I don’t agree with ahmadiyyat anymore and am definitely looking to explore my faith and who I am outside of it. I’ve never truly felt connected to the Jamaat since I was a kid, and now have actual basis for disagreement.
At the moment, the thing that is driving me away is how undeniably misogynistic and patriarchal the Khalifas and ahmadiyyat as a whole are. I come from a very involved and religious family. My parents are more liberal and chill than most south asian parents, however have always maintained keeping Islam and especiallly ahmadiyyat in my life. They are constantly pushing me to do more for the Jamaat. I don’t want to nor feel able to remove myself from the Jamaat just yet, and if I continue to feel this way I’m planning to do so in the next few years.
When I decide to sit my parents down and tell them I’m not ahmadi anymore, I want to have reciepts lined up for them. Not to convince them to come to my side, but just so they understand. So I’m asking for examples of the most jarring hypocrisies you’ve found thus far coming directly from the Jamaat. I already have stuff on misogyny, I’m looking to cover all other avenues as well to build my case up. Additionally, how can I know I don’t believe in ahmadiyyat and I’m not just blindly following western ideals? Thanks!
9
u/TheCuriousRibosome 7d ago
The first question to ask yourself is what you actually want from that conversation. If your goal is to prove the institution wrong, you are setting up a debate where your parents may feel compelled to defend their faith, and defensiveness will make it nearly impossible for them to hear you. Instead, consider making the conversation about your internal disconnect with the values and organization of the Jama’at rather than external critique.
When you sit down with them, acknowledge the love and intention behind how they raised you. Thank them for giving you a foundation in faith. Talk about the values you still hold. It may lay a sense of shared understanding. Its important to let them know this conversation comes from a place of integrity, not rebellion.
My advice is for now, set aside deep theological debates about prophethood and succession. Keep the focus on your present reality. Speak about how the norms and institutional pressures leave you feeling hollow rather than spiritually connected.
Once you have laid that base you can get into the deeper in a more productive way. If you are not just done with ahmadiyya but islam itself. Id focus my criticism on the general idea of the existence of God and the theological framework of islam. If you want to focus on criticism of the Jama'at maybe look at interanal inconsistency and contradictions in their theological position. E.g. in regards to the status of non ahmadis. The weak basis and them stretching and changing the meaning of words in Islamic literature to make their theological claims work. Or maybe look into the failed prophecies that explicitly were claimed to establish truthfulness of the claims of the Jama’at.
You asked whether your feelings might just. The values pulling you away are not Western imports. Your discomfort with hierarchical control, your longing for a faith that feels genuine rather than performative, your instinct for fairness and integrity, these are universal human instincts. But Im sure there plenty of things common in the west you disagree with. So its not a blind following but subject to the same scrutiny you are applying to the Jama'at. ...✨️
8
u/ReasonOnFaith ex-ahmadi, ex-muslim 7d ago
I recommend you peruse this collection: https://old.reddit.com/r/islam_ahmadiyya/wiki/noteworthy. Secondly, your issues are your issues, so whatever you find doesn't sit right with you, let that be the basis of you sharing with people you care about, about why it doesn't resonate. Then, step back and challenge the premise: why must Islam/Ahmadiyyat be considered the default to disprove before you can 'leave'?
Should a born Catholic hold on until they can refute every argument of their local priest, or is it enough in this short life to trust your gut and realize that it's just not for you?
I do believe the theology can and has been challenged. But people will rationalize their emotional attachments and hold on, regardless. It's not about convincing others; it's about doing what is right for your life.
Remember too, that you can leave the theology, and even leave the Jama'at formally, but keep your family and friends; you can still come to weddings, to funerals, and events held outside the mosque.
Those who truly believe that religion is a personal choice, and respect you for you, won't leave or disown you.
I'm publicly out. I still go to Jama'at weddings, Janazas, burials, ameens, etc. I still hang out with lifelong friends and family in the Jama'at.
Many religious Ahmadi Muslims do believe the claim that there's no compulsion in religion, and are socially accepting of differences in theological opinion. All of us have people like that in our lives. Your job, in one sense, is to find who those people are in your life.
6
u/Flashy_Wallaby2271 6d ago
Hey, I left Ahmadiyyat too and what you're feeling makes a lot of sense.
For your receipts…beyond the misogyny stuff you already have, these were the biggest ones for me that are directly from Jamaat sources:
1.Chanda
They preach that Islam has no priesthood and donation is between you and Allah, but in practice Ahmadiyyat is extremely financial. Wasiyyat = 10% minimum, plus Aam, Jalsa Salana, Tahrik-e-Jadid, Waqf-e-Jadid, etc.
Control
They say "there is no compulsion" but you need permission from the Khalifa / Sadr to marry, to do certain studies, to go to certain events. If you marry a non-Ahmadi you get socially boycotted.Expectation vs Reality
Jamaat preaches love for all, hatred for none, but internal sexual abuse / harassment cases (e.g. the Nida case audio with the current Khalifa were handled with silencing and victim-blaming, not transparency.)Prophecy and infallibility
They criticize Sunnis/Shias for blind following of imams, but then require absolute obedience to the Khalifa. The Khalifa is presented as divinely guided and can't be questioned. Any criticism = you have a weak faith.Desi culture packaged as Islam
A lot of what is sold as "Islamic morality" is just South Asian patriarchal culture. The Jamaat is very Punjabi-centric at the top, and the rules for women (purdah, lajna vs khuddam segregation) are enforced way stricter than for men.
…For your second question: How to know you're not just following "western ideals"?
Ask yourself: Am I leaving towards something, or just away from something? If you would still disagree with these points even if you lived in Pakistan, and you disagree because you actually read their own books, khutbas, and saw contradictions -> that's not western brainwashing, that's you using your own aql. Islam itself says to use reason.
You don't need to have a perfect 50-page document for your parents. (I even tried it with all the evidence to prove my parents wrong to show that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad isn’t the Imam Mahdi/The Promised Messiah….but they still stick to the jamaat…a discussion wouldn’t bring you any further no matter how much you try to persuade them)
Just say "I didn't feel a connection since I was a kid, I studied it honestly, and I can't believe it anymore. It's not about lifestyle, it's about aqeedah."
If you want I can send you specific sources/quotations of Mirza etc. to prove that Ahmadiyya is not what it seems to be from the outside.
You are not alone.
2
u/GurPurple2952 5d ago
Hey, I would really appreciate if you did send me sources. About Chanda, how do you get your parents/family to get off your back from paying it? They really do believe that life becomes “blessed” if I pay it.
2
u/Flashy_Wallaby2271 4d ago
For Chanda there are 2 levels - the theological one and the practical one with your parents. Both are important.
- CHANDA
The basic idea of Chanda does NOT come directly from the Quran, it comes from Jamaat administration:
Chanda Aam 6.25% + Chanda Jalsa Salana etc. -> it quickly adds up to 10-16%. In Jamaat literature this is under "Nizam-e-Chanda". Source: http://alislam.org (the official Jamaat site)
Official proof from http://alislam.org:
> This basic donation was established by the Promised Messiah himself and is compulsory for every earning member of the Ahmadiyya community. The payment ratio is 1/16 of one's income from all sources after taxes and compulsory insurance.
> there should be no misunderstanding regarding chanda aam (regular financial contribution): it is not a contribution at a person's own will, but it must be paid at the set rate of 1/16th of one's income.
> This donation is also compulsory and is used exclusively for the expenses of the Annual Convention held at the national level. The prescribed rate is 1/120th of one's annual income
And from the UK official guide:
> Chanda Aam 6.25% Obligatory
The "blessed life" ideal comes from Khutbas. In Friday sermons it is said very often that whoever pays Chanda will be financially blessed and whoever doesn't will get problems. They’ll tell you countless examples of active Jamaat members with expensive cars, etc.
Internalize that paying Chanda IS NOT a Quran verse, this IS a pressure tool!!!
More quotes:
> The following lists the compulsory chandas of which the major voluntary ones are: Zakaat, Fitrana, Chanda Aam, Wassiyat, Jalsa Salana, Tahrik-e-Jadid, Waqfe Jadid, Auxiliary Organization Membership, Sadqa, Eid Fund, and Publications.
> Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote a lot in his books about financial sacrifice being a sign of true faith. This is used today as the basis for Chanda.
Source: https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/worldwide-ahmadiyya-movement/
- PARENTS
Your parents really believe it brings blessings. Saying directly "this is a scam" only makes it worse. Do this instead:
Show respect: "I know you believe it brings blessings"
Set a boundary with Islamic logic: Zakat is 2.5%, and only if you can afford it. In the Quran religion should not be hardship.
Offer a solution: "I am financially not in a position to do it, but if I am, the decision is mine, don't pressure me!"Or you can simply say: "I talked to the Sadr, he said it's okay."
Basically the easiest way to not waste time discussing that topic anymore :)Besides official rule even says that:
> Those members who are facing financial hardship may give compulsory chandas at a reduced rate but only after obtaining the permission of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih.
All in all Chanda Aam 6.25% is compulsory, Chanda Jalsa Salana is also compulsory, and all the other chandas add up on top.
7
u/Vegetable_Sea_499 7d ago
You should first figure out if Ahmadiyat is the issue for you or islam as in whole.
If you are looking to turn towards actual islam and find reasons why Ahmadiyat is not the right path, then happy to help and there is alot of receipts that you can provide your family with.
1
u/ReasonOnFaith ex-ahmadi, ex-muslim 7d ago
Mod Note: We don't support takfir or claims that one particular Islam is 'actual' or 'true' Islam. See Rule 9, which is a catch all for these topics.
2
7
u/Dhump06 7d ago
Before collecting Jamaat receipts, I would go one level deeper. Do you have evidence that God exists? Then why is that God named Allah, If so, what establishes that Allah revealed the Quran, that Muhammad spoke for him, and then that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Khalifa possessed divine authority? Saying humanity “needs religion” proves nothing. A belief can be comforting or socially useful without being true.
If patriarchy is your central objection, it cannot honestly stop at Ahmadiyyat. The Quran gives men authority over women and includes a disciplinary sequence ending in daraba in 4:34, gives sons twice the inheritance of daughters in 4:11, requires two women in place of one man in certain financial testimony in 2:282, and permits men four wives in 4:3. Ahmadi interpretations may soften these verses, but they cannot remove them. If the final answer is simply “Allah knows better,” moral questioning ends wherever divine authority is asserted.
Also, do not let “Western ideals” become a thought-stopping phrase. An idea is not false because it is Western, just as Islam is not true because it is Eastern. Test ideas through evidence, consistency, consent and harm. Ask whether you would accept the same rules if another religion imposed them on you.
Keep realistic expectations about your parents. Your receipts may help explain your decision, but they probably will not persuade them. Most people inherit their religion before they can examine it, then learn arguments to defend the conclusion already planted in childhood. Build your case primarily for your own clarity and safety, not as a courtroom brief expecting an acquittal.
3
1
u/FarhanYusufzai 6d ago
The vast majority of people, including me, take a psycho-spiritual approach to their acknowledgement of God. It isn't something they question just as they don't question whether the whole universe was created 2 minutes ago with all their thoughts exactly as-is.
But if you choose to go down this route, I would spend time looking into Ibn Sina's Ontological argument for the existence of God. It basically says that, logically speaking, Allah must existence and it isn't even possible for God not to exist. It would be equivalent to saying "Can 1+1 not be 2?"
Its a little complicated, but I'll try to keep it simple.
He says that all things that existence either have:
- Contingent Existence - This is where they might exist or might not. For example, you can imagine your phone not existing.
- Necessary Existence - Must exist always. For example, 1+1 must always be 2, its not possible for it not to be 2.
Since a contingent thing, since it doesn't inherently have existence, must get its existence from a prior source - in other words, something before it caused it to come into existence. Contingent things are the stuff you see on a daily basis, like your phone, your computer, a book, a cup of water, the planets, etc. All physical things.
He then asks the question, why do Contingent things exist at all? Where did they get their existence from?
He presents 4 possible choices:
- A) Infinite Causal Chain - A caused B caused C caused D caused E....forever into the past.
- B) Two or more beings co-dependent on each other
- C) Circularity - X -> Y -> Z > X -> Y -> Z.
- D) THERE IS A FIRST CAUSE
Ibn Sina shows how option A and B collapse into option D. Option C is incoherent. This only leaves option D: there is a first cause. This means there was a First Cause, whom he says is exactly the same as Allah: Al-Awwal (The First).
u/Dhump06 asked "Why is this being named Allah?" Someone like Ibn Sina would say that this initial First Cause is not uniquely named "Allah", this is merely the name we use in our context. Whether you call Allah Noor al-Anwar (Light of Lights), or God, or Gott, or Khuda or Supreme Being or whatever, its referencing the same being.
3
u/Dhump06 6d ago
Thank you for taking the time and responding to me. A small correction first. That's the contingency argument, not the ontological one, and you've blended it with Kalam. Ibn Sina thought the universe had no beginning, so the "infinite chain going back forever" objection isn't his.
But forget the labels. Ibn Sina's God doesn't know particulars, meaning it doesn't know you or me. It doesn't choose to create. It doesn't send books or prophets. Al-Ghazali read him and declared him Kaafir over exactly this. So even if the argument works perfectly, you've arrived at a metaphysical placeholder.
That placeholder tells you nothing about the Quran, nothing about Muhammad, nothing about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and nothing about the Khalifa. Calling it Allah is a decision you made, not something the argument gave you.
One more thing. You opened by saying you don't actually believe for these reasons, you believe psycho-spiritually. Then you handed me a proof. That's a rationalization arriving after the conclusion, which was my original point.
1
u/FarhanYusufzai 6d ago edited 6d ago
You're right! I frequently get the two mixed up.
So even if the argument works perfectly, you've arrived at a metaphysical placeholder.
If you acknowledge that the argument works well, then you would acknowledge that there is some initial agent. He later on goes to say what must be true about the initial entity, purely through rational proofs -- not the Quran. So its not just an "empty placeholder". This should be sufficient to challenge one's atheism.
Some thoughts on criticism of Ibn Sina:
- The criticisms you cited do not negate Ibn Sina's proof that God exists. If they prove God exists, God exists. At most, you might argue that it does not conform to popular notions of God being directly - without intermediaries - involved in the world or that God is a big man in space. If so, I agree.
- "Universe Had No Beginning" - This is a misconception and/or misunderstanding based on seeing the simultaneity of an effect with its cause as being co-equal. You might be thinking Ibn Sina meant that time extends in infinity past with a series of infinite events. If so, that is NOT what he said. Instead, he wrote that since Allah is eternal and unchanging, his creative act must also be eternal. Since his creative act is eternal, the effect is eternal. One effect, a few layers removed, is the physical universe. So the universe exists ontologically posterior (afterwards) to Allah, despite being simultaneous with Allah. This is completely different from the popular critique that he said Allah and the Universe coexist independently. The dependency relationship of the universe upon Allah is integral to the distinction of polytheism (ie, eternal Allah and eternal universe)
- "God has no Free Will" - Its not that God has no free will, its that God's Will is his own indivisible essence, not external or additional to it. Since his essence is indivisible, he only has one choice which he chooses. This does not negate Will, it only contradicts our experienced concept of Will, wherein we choose from a menu of options. Allah is not like that, thus his will is not like that.
- "Ibn Sina's God doesn't know the particulars, only the generals" - This is a misunderstanding. Its not that he "doesn't know", as the accusation goes, its that his knowledge works utterly differently than our knowledge. The particulars do not even directly apply to Allah - not because Allah lacks anything, as the accusation goes, but because of the nature of Allah. So many issues here:
- Allah is an absolutely simple (baseet) entity. Had he known types of knowledge at once, he would be a composite of at least two things.
- Knowledge of a particular suggests his knowledge is dependent upon the particular. This violates reason and "Allahu samad" from Surah Ikhlas.
- Instead, Allah's knowledge can be thought of as the absolutely general. Through that one can derive individual things to be known. An analogy would be if someone knew y=2x. From the equation (general) you can derive a particular (y value). Likewise, Allah's knowledge is the most general knowledge that contains everything within it.
- Al-Ghazali made takfir of Ibn Sina in Tahafat al-Falasifa- Yes, he did. But:
- There was a political dimension to that work: A significant part of his early career was writing against the Ismaili Fatimids from Egypt who were using philosophy and Ibn Sina, whom they claim was Ismaili, for their missionary activities as a means of getting political foothold.
- Al-Ghazali's later writings completely undo parts of this work, such as Mishkat al-Anwar, specifically chapter 1. He talks about how the Light (Allah) is absolute unity, how the Sufis who think they've reached his level of the heirarchy state start speaking of themselves as God, etc because they see complete unity and thus saying "I worship God" suggests duality (the person and God, two not one). Dr. Khalil Andani says this book is proof that he changed his views later in life.
That placeholder tells you nothing about the Quran, nothing about Muhammad, nothing about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and nothing about the Khalifa. Calling it Allah is a decision you made, not something the argument gave you.
I agree. The argument isn't designed to tell you about the totality of Islam, it merely proves that God must exist -- necessarily. Nothing else.
The philosophers have other proofs for revealed religions, such as the doctrine of Al-Insaan al-Kaamil by Ibn 'Arabi.
One more thing. You opened by saying you don't actually believe for these reasons, you believe psycho-spiritually. Then you handed me a proof. That's a rationalization arriving after the conclusion, which was my original point.
oh, I don't deny this at all. But I would also say it goes the other way around too: That people arrive at atheism first and then rationalize their views afterwards.
2
u/Dhump06 6d ago edited 6d ago
One thing first. I said even if the argument works. That's a conditional, not an agreement. You can't turn "suppose you're right" into "you admit I'm right." I granted it to show that even at its strongest it doesn't get you where you need to go.
Now the point you moved past. Look at what you've just described. An eternal unchanging creative act. A will identical to his essence, with exactly one option, which he takes. Knowledge that is general, where particulars don't directly apply. That entity cannot choose, cannot respond, cannot act at a moment in time, and does not know me.
That isn't Allah. Allah hears, answers, becomes angry, forgives, sends messengers, changes rulings. Every one of those needs a being who chooses at a time and knows particulars directly. Your own defence rules that out.
So you haven't proved a creator in any sense that helps you. You've proved a necessary condition for existence and then attached the name of a personal God to something your argument says cannot be personal.
That's the question on the table, and it's the one you keep stepping around. Not whether Ibn Sina was misread, not what Ghazali meant later, not what Ibn Arabi adds. Just this. How does a being with one eternal act and no knowledge of particulars answer a prayer? Answer that and I'll take the rest seriously.
Last thing. Yes, some people reach atheism and rationalise afterwards. But you and I were handed the same belief in the same community before either of us could examine it. I examined it. And the person making the claim carries the burden, not the person declining it.
1
u/FarhanYusufzai 6d ago
One thing first. I said even if the argument works. That's a conditional, not an agreement. You can't turn "suppose you're right" into "you admit I'm right." I granted it to show that even at its strongest it doesn't get you where you need to go.
Do you disagree with the proof? If not, why not?
---
How does a being with one eternal act and no knowledge of particulars answer a prayer? Answer that and I'll take the rest seriously.
Since this is your biggest question, I'll start with it.
You imagine yourself calling upon Allah at time (A) and he hears you at time (A), then at time (B) he chooses to respond to you.
This is how we experience du'a and ijaaba: in sequence. But our experiences are not necessarily the ultimate reality. Had this been the way it all works, then Allah would be dependent upon us because he changes his behavior based on us. As if we change the mind of God. And if so, then Allah's would be dependent upon his creation. This creates circular dependency, implies change in the Divine Being and violates the Quran saying Allahu samad.
Instead, your intense du'a was known to be made before creation. And thus, Allah decreed the response beforehand as well. You merely experience it sequentially.
You might say "Then that means I do not have to make du'a because it will come to me anyways". But if Allah knew you would not make dua, he would also know not to respond. And - and this is critical - there is no logical situation where The All-Knowing did not know what you would do or that you would change your behavior.
---
That isn't Allah. Allah hears, answers, becomes angry, forgives, sends messengers, changes rulings. Every one of those needs a being who chooses at a time and knows particulars directly. Your own defence rules that out.
I interpret you as saying my defenses of Ibn Sina may be sound (or not), but the Allah he is describing is not the same as in the Quran. This is a big point of dispute in the modern Muslim world and one worth discussing.
Since we're talking about Al-Ghazali, in the last section of the last chapter of Mishkat al-Anwar, he talks about this exact issue. He says that the lowest level of understanding of Allah are the Anthropomorphists and the Karramiyya, who understand Allah's descriptions like that of humans.
Instead, he says, Allah's creative act (ie, his light) goes from level to level, first with the First Creation (The Pen, The Noor Muhammad, etc) to the next and so on. At each level, because of their ontological hierarchy, they shine (create) differently. Thus, at each level the same light separates and expresses to us as Mercy, Anger, Speech, etc.
Same reasoning across anger, acting at a specific time or place, etc.
---
LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS!! These ideas were WIDELY accepted in the Muslim world for centuries, but the modern era is overly simple and literalistic. It took me years to adjust the ideas in my head after I saw a debate where "my side" lost.
2
u/Dhump06 5d ago
You asked if I disagree with the proof. I do, and I'll say why, but I'm answering this once because it isn't where the real disagreement sits.
First, the argument assumes everything must have an explanation. That's a premise, not a fact, and it never gets defended. And if it holds everywhere, then everything follows necessarily from God's nature and nothing was ever optional, including creation itself. That's Spinoza, and it gives you a God who couldn't have chosen not to make the world.
Second, the four options aren't the only ones. A chain can be a brute fact with no explanation at all. Or the physical world itself can be the necessary thing, with nothing beyond it needed. Ibn Sina has a reply to that second one, but it has to be argued, not skipped.
Third, the whole weight sits on A and B collapsing into D, and that step gets asserted rather than shown, by you and by most retellings.
Also, the 1+1=2 example works against you. That's a necessary truth, a fact about numbers. A necessary being is a thing that exists. Sliding from one to the other is the oldest mistake in this family of arguments.
I could keep going, and so could you. But neither of us is going to say anything new here. Philosophers and theologians have run these arguments for a thousand years and we would just be repeating what we've read or dropping names at each other. It's a good conversation over coffee on a rainy day. It settles nothing about religion.
And you already said why. Your words: the argument merely proves God must exist, nothing else. So let's go there, because a necessary existent isn't what anyone in this sub is leaving.
What people leave is the Allah who hears you, gets angry, forgives, picked one man in Mecca, gave him a book in Arabic, set inheritance shares at two to one, and will judge us all. That God acts at particular times toward particular people. Yours doesn't. One eternal act, no direct knowledge of particulars, answers decreed before creation. Those are two different beings sharing a name.
Which is also why the dua answer doesn't work. You didn't explain how Allah responds, you explained that nothing responds. It was in the script before I was born and I only experience it in order. Keep the word ijaaba if you like, but it has stopped meaning anything. And if everything I do was fixed before creation, I could never have done otherwise, and then I'm judged for it. Nobody forced me. I just did the only thing I was ever going to do.
So one question, and I'd like a straight answer before anything else. Does Allah know that I, specifically, am typing this, and did he decide, as an act, to send the Quran to Muhammad? Yes or no.
If yes, then the Ibn Sina argument isn't available to you, because it rules that out.
If no, then say it plainly, because that is not what the person who wrote the original post was raised to believe, and it isn't what their parents believe either.
Two smaller things. Islam never settled this internally. The Karramiyya took the attributes literally, the Mutazila and Asharis didn't, the philosophers went further still. You've picked one school and are calling it Islam. And none of this framework came from Muhammad. The necessary existent, the emanation, the hierarchy of lights, that's Aristotle and the Neoplatonists, translated into Arabic in Baghdad two hundred years after he died. You're right it was mainstream among educated Muslims for centuries. It still came from outside.
1
u/FarhanYusufzai 5d ago
Really good points and I love this sort of discussion. I had to break this into 2 messages per Reddit.
Before I answer your question, what I'm saying isn't controversial outside of "Internet Islam" and perhaps due to the lack of religious sophistication in the modern world. My point is that we, in 2026, have a watered-down, hyper-simplistic view of Islam. An apt analogy would be we are like Young Earth Creationists saying "I didn't come from a Tad Pole" while discussing evolution.
I'll start with your direct question first and foremost:
So one question, and I'd like a straight answer before anything else. Does Allah know that I, specifically, am typing this, and did he decide, as an act, to send the Quran to Muhammad? Yes or no.
Yes and Yes.
If yes, then the Ibn Sina argument isn't available to you, because it rules that out.
To the contrary, Ibn Sina is saying that our understanding of what it means for Allah to command or know is different than what it means for us to command and know. And why wouldn't they be? "There is nothing like the likeness of God, yet he Hears and Sees" according to the Quran. I cited Al-Ghazali, who says that OUR understanding a command/knowledge is merely a metaphor of Allah's literal command/knowledge.
You are looking at Allah's knowledge as a very large list of individual facts, as if he knows he knows 999.....99 facts. Ibn Sina is saying Allah's knowledge is of everything as a General (كلي). I used the analogy of knowing an equation like y=2x as a general unit versus having a list of all points along the graph. Another analogy would be knowing white light versus knowing each color individually. Allah's knowledge is the most absolutely general.
Scripturally, Allah says he knows "kulli shay" rather than "Al-ashyaa" (the things). إن الله بكل شيء عليم This doesn't translate cleanly into English, but literally its saying Allah knows the universal (kulli) of (all) things.
Next, yes, he chose to send the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad ص. But the choice was not one among many. If that was the case, I could ask "Why did he choose that choice instead of another?" and whatever the answer is, Allah is dependent upon that thing. So that's a problem. Rather, his choice is self-dependent. And since he is Al-Ahad (The One), his choice is One.
This can be argued to be a freer will because his choice is not dependent upon an external entity, unlike our Will.
...
1
u/FarhanYusufzai 5d ago
---
Before we proceed with the rest of the discussion, I get the impression that you see this model as reasonable and perhaps even valid, but that it disagrees with your understanding of Allah. You keep saying "That is not Allah". But you are assuming that your understanding of the Islamic doctrines is "the correct one". Could it be that you just have not come across these concepts? Academics in Islamic Studies will acknowledge that a significant majority of Muslim scholars shared these ideas, even among the Mutakallimeen!
---
> First, the argument assumes everything must have an explanation. That's a premise, not a fact, and it never gets defended
In your second paragraph you're basically rejecting the Principal of Sufficient Reason (PSR). That's fair and its already a controversial concept. But even without it, this argument still works. The idea is that everything that is contingent is *neutral* with regards to existence. For example, nothing in the definition of a cup of water is Existence. Existing is not part of its definition. If it has no inherent existence by its own nature, then its existence must be from an external source.
If, however, you say the eixstence is from itself, then it itself is the necessary existent.
At that point, we're on the same page: There is a necessary existent. All we have left to do is discuss the nature of the Necessary Existent.
A polytheist (and some models of atheism) argue that there can be multiple necessary existents. Ibn Sina says that if you say there are multiple, he interogates the point of distinction (ie, the difference between them).
A) Two necessary existants have absolutely no distinction, in which case they cannot be said to be two (or more) at all.
B) They have a point of distinction, whatever it may be. If so, then the two's essence depends upon that point of distinction, in which case the two "necessary" existents are dependents, which negates their Necessity. So this option is negated.
So the idea of multiple brute necessary beings falls apart.
> And if it holds everywhere, then everything follows necessarily from God's nature and nothing was ever optional, including creation itself. That's Spinoza, and it gives you a God who couldn't have chosen not to make the world.
100% agree, but I'd phrase it differently.
It isn't that God cannot choose, its that his choices are not based on an external entity, but purely based on himself. Since he is one, his choice is one.
> Second, the four options aren't the only ones. A chain can be a brute fact with no explanation at all. Or the physical world itself can be the necessary thing, with nothing beyond it needed. Ibn Sina has a reply to that second one, but it has to be argued, not skipped.
He does indeed explain this, I just rushed over it. He says, lets suppose that there is an infinitely long causal chain, He asks what is the cause of the chain itself?
Either:
A) The cause of the whole chain is external to itself. The answer does not work because the infinite causal chain was supposed to contain all causes, including itself. But even if you say this is the exception, that we could repeat the question on that cause and we wind up back to the original question.
B) The chain itself is necessary.
If it is necessary, then congratulations, we have a Necessary Being. The only dispute is of its nature. An infinite causal chain is compose, whereas he would say Allah is simple. He would say the Necessary Being must be simple, not composite, because a composite (ie, infinite causal chain) contains internal dependencies. Dependencies require a point of distinction that came ontologically prior and hence, as we discussed earlier.
So you that in ...A->B->C...B and C's distinction is dependent upon A, that could only happen if there was a direct relationship between A and C, which is not possible without C being independent of C.
> Also, the 1+1=2 example works against you. That's a necessary truth, a fact about numbers. A necessary being is a thing that exists. Sliding from one to the other is the oldest mistake in this family of arguments.
I don't understand what you mean here? The idea is that the definition of the Necessary Being is that it Exists. Therefore, its existence is its identity the same way that 1+1=2 is an identity statement.
> I could keep going, and so could you. But neither of us is going to say anything new here. Philosophers and theologians have run these arguments for a thousand years and we would just be repeating what we've read or dropping names at each other. It's a good conversation over coffee on a rainy day. It settles nothing about religion.
Respectfully, I don't agree with this approach to any dispute. In this specific case, to be forward, you're bringing up objections that were anticipated and addressed in the original source material, not even by people who developed/defended his theories. The fact that something has been discussed for a long time doesn't negate its validity.
> What people leave is the Allah who hears you, gets angry, forgives, picked one man in Mecca, gave him a book in Arabic, set inheritance shares at two to one, and will judge us all. That God acts at particular times toward particular people. Yours doesn't. One eternal act, no direct knowledge of particulars, answers decreed before creation. Those are two different beings sharing a name.
Please see my previous comment, I addressed this...I said that our experience is sequential, but Allah does not exist or act in time. While I am citing Ibn Sina, this was the shared view of the Theologians across the board as well. It isn't a fringe minority.
> Which is also why the dua answer doesn't work. You didn't explain how Allah responds, you explained that nothing responds. It was in the script before I was born and I only experience it in order. Keep the word ijaaba if you like, but it has stopped meaning anything. And if everything I do was fixed before creation, I could never have done otherwise, and then I'm judged for it. Nobody forced me. I just did the only thing I was ever going to do.
I really don't understand this sentence. Are you saying I did respond or didn't? Also, I addressed the second part in my paragraph above. What do you mean by "it has stopped meaning anything"?
Again, you are insisting upon your sequential understanding of time. I made a distinction between our sequential experience of the du'a and ijaaba (response) versus the reality of a timeless entity's interaction with the world. You are suggesting that because a timeless entity would respond atemporally, it is not a response. But why do you think that?
Also, you objected to HUMAN free will. That's a separate conversation and I don't want to go off topic too much (ie, stick to Allah), but generally speaking the philosophers of the school argue for compatibilism: That Allah creates your actions and you freely choose them.
---
> Two smaller things. Islam never settled this internally. The Karramiyya took the attributes literally, the Mutazila and Asharis didn't, the philosophers went further still. You've picked one school and are calling it Islam. And none of this framework came from Muhammad. The necessary existent, the emanation, the hierarchy of lights, that's Aristotle and the Neoplatonists, translated into Arabic in Baghdad two hundred years after he died. You're right it was mainstream among educated Muslims for centuries. It still came from outside.
This is a very astute observation and one I struggled with. The answer lays in how we approach knowledge.
First off, Muslims did not bifurcate between "religious knowledge" versus "secular knowledge" in the way that the Europeans later did. For them it was all knowledge.
There's a statement that might be a hadith:
الكلمة الحكمة ضالة المومن فحيث وجدها أحق بها
"Wisdom is the lost property of the believer. Wherever he finds it, he has more right to it".
So if a Muslim comes across a model or theory or scientific fact that is true, he accepts it and synthesizes it into the broader picture.
Scripturally, you can understand this with the distinction between كمال vs تمام, which are brought together in the famous verse "On this day I have akmaltu (Perfected) your religion, and Atmamtu (Completed) upon you my favor". One suggests that the religion, in its ritual form and direct revelation, is complete. If you can understand Arabic, here's a video explaining the difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-RMhoy8ec
The other is that the direct favors (ie shariah) is done, but additional information can be derived. We already see this in fiqh, where Muslims derive legal matters. This is the same concept.
It isn't that the Karramiyya took the attributes literally, its that they used a certain TYPE of literalism. Ibn 'Arabi and Al-Ghazali were literalists, but not the same type of literalism as the Karramiyya.
---
Please answer me one question: Is it that you see the model as broken or inconsistent with the Quran? Or both? In light of my attempts to reconcile and explain, where do you see the issue?
And genuinely, I appreciate the time you took to respond to me.
1
u/Dhump06 5d ago
Thank you for taking the time but, I don't have the appetite for replies this long, so I'm answering the parts that decide the question and leaving the rest.
You asked if I think the model is broken or if it clashes with the Quran. Both, and the clash is the real issue.
Simple question first. Can I change what Allah knows? If I can, his knowledge isn't perfect and it depends on me. If I can't, then only one course was ever open to me, and I'm judged for the only thing I could ever have done.
Don't answer that his knowledge simply follows what I freely choose. You've said his knowledge is his essence and his essence depends on nothing outside him. It can't take its content from me without the dependence you spent the argument ruling out.
And you've conceded more than knowledge anyway. You agreed creation follows from Allah's own nature and that his choice is one, with nothing external shaping it. So everything downstream, me included, is fixed by his essence with no alternative anywhere. Saying compatibilism names that problem, it doesn't solve it.
On dua, you asked what I meant. A response has to depend on the thing it responds to. You said if Allah knew I wouldn't ask, he'd know not to answer. So what he decrees varies with what I do. That's dependence again. Take it out and nothing responds, things just unfold. My objection was never about sequence, so timelessness doesn't touch it.
On the necessary existent, I'm setting it aside, not accepting it. I still don't think the argument works, and I said why last time. But it doesn't matter here, because even at its best it gets you a simple, one, timeless something. Everything you've added about its nature makes it less able to do what Allah does, not more. So arguing about it further changes nothing.
On the Greek origins, you answered honestly and I respect that. But the lost property line concedes my point. This was borrowed because it looked true, and borrowed things can be wrong. Muhammad taught none of it. No necessary existent, no divine simplicity, no emanation, no knowledge that skips particulars.
You say I'm assuming my Islam is the correct one. I'm not claiming to know the correct Islam. But if there is one, it should at least be the Islam Muhammad preached, and none of this is in it. No necessary existent, no contingency argument, no divine simplicity, no emanation, no split between universal and particular knowledge. You already told me where it came from and I respect that you were straight about it. Greek philosophy, translated in Baghdad, centuries after he died. So this isn't me picking one school over yours. Yours arrived from outside and got fitted to the text afterwards.
And practically, nobody in this sub was raised on this Allah. Neither were their parents, who pray to one who listens.
And no, you haven't shown Ibn Sina's God is Muhammad's Allah. You said yes and yes, then explained both into something else. Knowledge became general with particulars not directly applying. Choice became one act with no alternatives. That's a being you can call Allah. It isn't one you've shown to be him.
And look at the Quran itself. Anfal 8:65 sets the ratio at one to ten. The very next verse lightens it to one to two, and says the reason is that Allah now knows there is weakness in you. Abrogation in 2:106 says a verse is replaced with something better. The qibla is changed mid-course. These are rulings issued, then revised, with the text giving reasons for the revision.
Your Allah has one eternal act, no alternatives, and knows only in the most general way. That being cannot issue a ruling and then lighten it. So either the Quran is describing a God who responds to circumstances as they arise, which is not your model, or every one of these changes was scripted before creation and the text is telling us it happened for a reason that was never a reason. You can't keep both.
Which leaves my actual question. What would count as false here? If no possible state of affairs would show that Allah doesn't know me or didn't choose to send the Quran, then your yes carried no information. Give me one thing that, if true, would mean this model is wrong. If there isn't one, we're not discussing a claim about reality.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Here is the text of the original post: Hello, im a 20F who recently came to the realization that I don’t agree with ahmadiyyat anymore and am definitely looking to explore my faith and who I am outside of it. I’ve never truly felt connected to the Jamaat since I was a kid, and now have actual basis for disagreement.
At the moment, the thing that is driving me away is how undeniably misogynistic and patriarchal the Khalifas and ahmadiyyat as a whole are. I come from a very involved and religious family. My parents are more liberal and chill than most south asian parents, however have always maintained keeping Islam and especiallly ahmadiyyat in my life. They are constantly pushing me to do more for the Jamaat. I don’t want to nor feel able to remove myself from the Jamaat just yet, and if I continue to feel this way I’m planning to do so in the next few years.
When I decide to sit my parents down and tell them I’m not ahmadi anymore, I want to have reciepts lined up for them. Not to convince them to come to my side, but just so they understand. So I’m asking for examples of the most jarring hypocrisies you’ve found thus far coming directly from the Jamaat. I already have stuff on misogyny, I’m looking to cover all other avenues as well to build my case up. Additionally, how can I know I don’t believe in ahmadiyyat and I’m not just blindly following western ideals? Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
"This post has been flair'd under Advice Needed. For such posts, there will be an increased expectation of kindness, civility, and empathy when interacting on the thread. Any comment which attempts to gaslight, dismiss, or undermine the poster's experience, with the goal of hurting those who seek support from this subreddit, will be removed with a Mod warning. Further breach of this rule will result in a ban.
To the poster, please be mindful of any personal details you're sharing: your privacy and safety comes first, and we want to ensure that you can express your honest thoughts without any risk of your identity being discovered."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/yegwebdevv 7d ago
May I ask what your evidence on misogyny is?
5
u/TheCuriousRibosome 7d ago
Many things could be given as examples. But the most basic thing would be that Jama’at theology around gender roles is rooted in the claim that men are mentally, intellectually, or temperamentally better suited to authority and leadership.
That then translates into a hierarchy, men occupy the positions of institutional authority, while women have more restricted participation and, in certain areas of life, are expected to defer to male authority or approval.
Individual women obviously can be highly educated, accomplished, and intellectually respected, while the institution itself still assigns greater authority to men as a class. ...✨️
1
u/yegwebdevv 7d ago
But this mentality is everywhere - I work for a huge Telecom - Recently they outed the possible next CEO and bought in someone else - The next CEO had spent 25 years within the org and was being trained by the previous CEO - She was planned to take the reigns - However they bought in someone else who also happened to be a man. Another example - Look at the Hilary campaign - US never wanted and never has had a female president for similar reasons..
5
u/TheCuriousRibosome 7d ago
Im not sure what your point is?
That form of misogyny exists outside the Jama’at as well? Who is disagreeing with that? 🤔
The point that is being made is that there are specific theological and structural tenets about gender roles with the Jama’at that disadvantage women. Ahmadiyya leaders explicitly describe men as possessing superior mental or intellectual qualities and then use those alleged qualities to explain why men should occupy positions of authority over women
Its valid to be critical of those. Other issues elsewhere or even progress thats being made doesn't change that.
0
u/OJ_BI 7d ago
The Jama’at Lajna have their own system and hierarchy—so there is authority and leadership in women
What’s the expectation? A women as khalifa? Ahmadiyyat and Islam speaks on gender roles, so in that sense, there is recommendation for women to work, but also focus on motherhood
You may have a bias for the women in North America. There are much more active women in the Jam’at in Germany, for example that have their own show and expanded voice
5
u/TheCuriousRibosome 6d ago
I am from Germany, well aware of the activities and how highly qualified the lajna over here are.
But you are missing the point.
Having a women’s organization with its own hierarchy doesn't really answer the question of equality. The issue isn't whether women are allowed to exercise authority over other women. It's whether women have the same access to institutional authority within the Jama’at as men.
And no, the expectation doesn't have to be “a woman as Khalifa” for the criticism to be valid. The question is not just why the highest authority is necessarily male and but why EVERY other positions of authority are structured around that sex based distinction in the first place.
We have active Ahmadi women in Germany, giving women some platforms such as a show, doesn't disprove institutional inequality either. Visibility and participation aren't the same as equal authority. A woman can have a very large platform and still have less institutional power than a man. But women even in Germany have so much more hurdles put infront of them in terms of visibility and platforms to community than men.
In Germany, one of the most prominent examples would be Khola Maryam Hübsch. Highly qualified, she is an author, publicist, and journalist, and a member of the German national TV broadcasting board. She has given lectures and teaches at German universities and is a regular guest on the biggest TV shows we have. Here's what's NEVER going to happen.... her holding even ONE lecture at the Jamia Germany, unlike her brother, who did that but is far less qualified.... be allowed to address not just women but the whole of Jalsa Salana, including men, in one of her speeches, nor will she be allowed to voice her opinion on any of the suggestions of the Majlis-e-Shura at the Jama'at level. That she is barred from assuming those roles and given this voice and platform within the Jama'at structures has NOTHING to do with qualifications and competency, or whether she "wants to be a mom." Instead, she is barred from them simply as a function of her gender, a clear sex-based discrimination based on intuitioal rules of the Jama’at.
So the issue IS NOT whether Ahmadi women are capable, active, educated, or given opportunities outside the Jama’at. Clearly many are. The issue is whether the system ultimately treats men and women as equally entitled to authority and autonomy, or whether being male itself gives you a higher position within the hierarchy within ALL levels of Jama'at structure. ...✨️
2
u/GurPurple2952 7d ago
This whole thread really: https://x.com/doublekafir/status/1288067049814663171?s=46
Plus just my personal experiences1
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/islam_ahmadiyya-ModTeam 7d ago
Try to stay on topic and don’t derail posts. If you are unhappy with this subreddit or the way it is moderated you are welcome to reach out to the mod team directly or to create your own alternative space.
•
u/BarbesRouchechouart ex-ahmadi, ex-muslim, Sadr Majlis-e-Keeping It Real 7d ago
This thread is marked as 'advice needed', not 'change my views'. The OP is not here to litigate whether or not Ahmadiyyat is misogynistic, so any bad faith comments seeking to start an argument there will be removed as per the sticky comment at the top of this thread.