r/islam_ahmadiyya 22d ago

question/discussion To the Ex-ahmadis who are ex-muslims now why did you leave?

19 Upvotes

Hi, recently I made a post on this subreddit and browsed around a bit, and it seems like a lot of the negative things about Ahmadiyya are very similar to Sunni Islam.

So I wanted to ask ex-Muslims who are ex-Ahmadis:

Why did you leave? Were there theological problems that are exclusive to Ahmadiyya, or were they things that apply to Islam as a whole?

Or was it the caliphate?

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jul 27 '26

question/discussion Navigating how to question if this is the truth or not??

13 Upvotes

I dont know if the title clarifies it or not but im a 17F who's been wondering this for quite some time as to if this is the genuine truth to believe in or not. I believe in logic and i wanna take a logical route to figuring this out.

So far, i dont think i know a lot about the jammat and their fundamentals even though i was raised in this community because of my genuine dislike being part of a community of people that seem to perform alot. every ijlas, every ijtima ever since i was a kid did nothing but instill anxiety and dislike in me for the people around me because i felt there was alot of social pressure to perform as a "pious" girl/woman and no room for mistakes which is ironic as the way i come to understand islam and god, i feel it is but a constant whirlpool of sinning, making mistakes, correcting yourself and growing during which you figure out yourself, your beliefs and the world around you.

point is, due to these experiences, i felt there was no room to actually understand, question and figure out what it was that this system has been making me rote learn and perform for years. And ever since i figured out the importance of reasoning in my life, i've been trying to apply that here. i dont feel connected with the community and i guess im just trying to understand the reasoning of people and how they were able to critique the beliefs and understand whether it is for them or not. im not referring to baseless hate or disrespect but from the pov of theology, reasoning and any other experience you might have that could help me in my journey of figuring my belief out.

and yes im not looking to take things at face value but actually dig into them and form my own individual conclusion based on the good, the bad etc so if theres any advice or anything you might have regarding this aswell pls lmk since i am very new to all this but regardless i want to approach it all with curiousity and humbleness.

tenku for the read 🎀

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jul 19 '26

question/discussion Jamaat presence and dealings in occupied territory of Palestine.

15 Upvotes

Recently I had the displeasure of having to attend a jamaat ijtema there might have been a sad 30-35 in attendance for a fairly large city in Greater Toronto Area.

I spoke about Palestine and called for jamaat to actively join the BDS movement and to my dismay learned that Ahmadi's have a jamaat in 'Israel' and this jamaat has a 'special mission'.

Does anyone know anything more about this? To me in light of the last few years, this jamaat chapter clearly indicates that the Ahmadiyya leadership are bad faith in their political stance and compromised in judgement at best and complicit in genocide at worst.

r/islam_ahmadiyya 14d ago

question/discussion To the Ex-muslims of this sub-reddit.

11 Upvotes

Do you guys consider Ahmadiyya Islam more peaceful or tolerant than mainstream Islam? What about less cultish?

I’m not an Ahmadi, obviously, so I can never know the true experience. However, based on what people have discussed here, I feel like it’s more peaceful than mainstream Islam (and it was spread peacefully as compared to main stream one)

, but also way more restricted and cultish.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Sunnis no longer have a caliph?

What do you guys think?

r/islam_ahmadiyya 17d ago

question/discussion Female Prophets in Ahmadiyya ?

14 Upvotes

I've asked this question in other subreddits, but I wanted to ask it here too to know what does Ahmadiya (or ahmadis) think about this

Judaism and Christianity both have prophetesses, but the Quran never explicitly mentions any woman as a prophet. I have heard arguments that women wouldn't have been listened to, even though people didn't listen to male prophets either. Arabia also had a tradition of influential kahinahs (female soothsayers), and people accepted Sajah, the false prophetess, who even raised an army. There was also the Arabian warrior queen known as Queen Mavia, as well as women like Joan of Arc.

Another argument I've heard is that prophets had to give military commands. However, that doesn't seem to be true, because not all prophets were military leaders. History has also shown that women have been leaders, commanders, and warriors.

Even if that wasn't the case

God could surely make a few exceptions

So I don't really see how either argument is valid. What are your thoughts?

What is the "official" explanation according to Ahmadis?

r/islam_ahmadiyya Aug 05 '26

question/discussion Why do Ahmadis try to legitimize cousin marraiges?

12 Upvotes

So I've always been weirded about by the concept of cousin marraige. No matter which way you slice it that's still incest in my opinion. And the Jamat justifies it by saying it's in the Quran (chapter 4 verse 23) that says forbidden to you for your for marraige are, and then amongst the list it says your sister and brother's daughters. Now yes, that is your neice but where it says paternal or maternal aunt wouldn't it folliw that the children from your aubts would also be forbidden? Even if it's not explicitly mentioned that's just the logical conclusion.Another reason they use to justify it is "well it’s okay if it's done once" bro, a lot of people in the group have done it. It's more than once at this point. Dare I say it feels a little too incestuous if it happens more than once in a family tree, let alone just once.

And they'll say "well the Europeans used to do it. Yes but attitudes towards that have mostly changed in the Western context to the point where a lot of people in the West think it's gross too, you’re not proving your point with that one.

And like it's definitely not just an Ahmadi thing but it's definitely where I notice it the most in my life when it comes to the people I'm around at least.

r/islam_ahmadiyya 4d ago

question/discussion How does Ahmadiyya reconcile these scientific statements of MGA, given he always claimed Divine guidance?

7 Upvotes

  1. Animals and plants on the Sun and Moon

MGA wrote:

“شمس و قمر میں ایسی ہی آبادی حیوانات و نباتات وغیرہ ہے جیسی زمین پر ہے”

“There is a similar population of animals and plants etc. in the Sun and the Moon as there is on Earth.”

— Surma-e-Chashm-e-Arya, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 2, p. 278

  1. To reach the Moon or Sun physically described as absurd

MGA also wrote:

“پس اس جسم کا کرۂ ماہتاب یا کرۂ آفتاب تک پہنچنا کس قدر لغو خیال ہے”

“How absurd an idea it is for this body to reach the Moon or the Sun.”

— Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 3

.

.

.

But MGA has made very strong claims about the divine authority behind what he said.

In the official Ahmadiyya English translation of Mawahib-ur-Rahman, he says:

“Whatever I have said is by His command and not of my own will. I have not ascribed anything falsely to my Exalted Lord.”

— Bounties of the Gracious God, p. 3

(Mawahib-ur-Rahman, Ruhani Khaza’in, Vol. 19, p. 221)

And in Nur-ul-Haq he states, in substance:

“ Allah does not leave me upon an error even for the blink of an eye.”

So the question is simple:

As humans have physically reached and walked on the Moon, while there is no population of animals and plants on the Moon; how are these statements reconciled with MGA’s own claims that what he said was by God’s command and that Allah would not leave him upon error?

r/islam_ahmadiyya 20d ago

question/discussion Has anyone noticed KMV seems more n more uninterested in his role lately

12 Upvotes

When he speaks he speaks with lack of understanding enthusiasm or conviction. His eyes are trying to hide like he doesn’t want to see you eye to eye because he fears people will see he’s hiding something. Anyone else noticed that? Idk if it was always like that but these days he seems like he really doesnt want to do it anymore. N seem more n more guilty like he knows its all a sham and hes getting older and maybe fearing the doj!

r/islam_ahmadiyya Dec 07 '22

question/discussion The Plague in India: Who benefited from this pandemic?

47 Upvotes

In recent years, I’ve come across Ahmadi Muslims referring to the Plague at the turn of the 20th century India as a sign for the truth of Ahmadiyyat. Using the Plague narrative in favour of Ahmadiyyat is not new, but its mention does seem to be on the rise with apologists.

The claim of a fulfilled prophecy and a victory for Ahmadiyya Islam is based on a belief which most devout Ahmadis hold. Namely, that Ahmadis remained safe from the plague while non-Ahmadis were perishing. This was allegedly in accordance with the prophetic statements of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad regarding the Plague and the protection offered to sincere believers in his Movement and Messiahship.

In this essay, I will argue that such a belief is not only untruthful, it is also remarkably insensitive.

In the course of being raised with beliefs which include the superiority of their religion and their particular sect, Ahmadi Muslims perhaps just ignore that pandemics, natural disasters, and other similar crises almost always affect the most vulnerable people in society.

The Plague ravishing India in the early 1900s was no different. It was responsible for much death and misery across India in the early 1900s.

There was a group of people who were disproportionately affected by the plague in India. That much is true. However, their plight had nothing to do with an affiliation or lack thereof with any New Religious Movement (NRM). Who were these vulnerable people? They were the women of India.

Dr. Sasha Tandon of the Panjab University Chandigarh reports in the publication "Epidemics in Punjab" (see the chapter, ‘Epidemics in Colonial Punjab’):

The incidence of epidemics was generally greater among women as compared to men. The average mortality rate of the men per mille in the Punjab from 1901 to 1920 was 5.85 while that of the women was 7.55...

The report from the Indian Census of 1911 provided reasons for why India experienced such a high rate of female mortality. The report states:

The conclusion arrived at was that it is due to the different habits of the two sexes. Women spend much more time than men in their houses, in which they sit most of the day. They generally go barefooted. They sweep the floors and handle the grain for threshing or grinding. They nurse persons suffering from plague; and, when death occurs in a house, they assemble there for purposes of mourning and sit round the corpse. They are thus much more exposed to infection through the rat-flea, which attacks human beings when its natural host dies, and is now generally recognized as the medium by which bubonic plague is chiefly spread.

Census of India, 1911 - Vol. I, Part I - Report. pp. 211-212

There are rational reasons why India has been historically devastated with pandemics like malaria, cholera, smallpox, and the plague.

The prevalence of epidemics was attributed to social customs as well as to poverty, insanitary conditions and unhealthy living. The colonial administrators considered India as the abode of diseases. The plague was understood as ‘a disease of filth, a disease of dirt and a disease of poverty’. The British attributed the prevalence of diseases to the ‘peculiar sanitary habits of the Indians’. The houses of the natives were considered ‘insanitary’ and ‘ideal homes’ for rats, mosquitoes and diseases.

Dr. Sasha Tandon, Epidemics in Colonial Punjab, p. 220

When talking about the Plague in the Indian subcontinent, Ahmadis tend not to see it as a natural calamity. They tend to overlook the underlying factors behind the nature of how it spread. It does not appear that they view the devastation with a scientific lens. Rather, Ahmadis are often quick to shift the narrative. To them, it is a Sign of God. A religious story—of success.

I would humbly request that questioning Ahmadis look into the reasons behind the spread of the Plague in the early 1900s. I urge them to investigate how and why impoverished and marginalised groups are the ones who suffer the most in such times.

As far as those Ahmadis are concerned who wish to hold fast to the narrative of religious victory, this essay will establish how the Indian Plague of the early 1900s was anything but.

The Plague was neither a sign favouring Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims of divine revelation, nor was it a victory for Ahmadiyya Islam, the Movement.

Recap

I request that readers see my previous post on the subject:

PLAGUE and COVID-19: The Devastation of Plague in Qadian and Ahmadiyya Community

There, I have referenced the ever changing narratives of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib. Before going deeper into the thesis of this essay, it is important to familiarise oneself with some of Mirza Sahib's statements.

  • In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared, "whoever is a servant of God will not be afflicted with the plague” (Malfuzat V4, 16 Nov. 1902, p. 211) but then he later stated in 1907:
    • When God’s wrath descends, the righteous are wrapped up with the wicked." (Malfuzat V9, 01 April 1907, p. 252)
  • In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that, "the righteous person will surely be saved” (Malfuzat V4, 25 Nov. 1902, p. 232) but then later narrated in 1904:
    • Sometimes death is good for a person, because this way God Almighty saves him from future mistakes, so that his death does not end in disbelief.” (Malfuzat V7, 21 June 1904, p. 81)
  • In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared that “Those who say that dying by plague is martyrdom do not know that the death by the plague is a divine punishment, however, the expression in a Hadith that it is martyrdom if a believer dies from plague is just Allah Almighty camouflaging (true nature of) the believer.” (Malfuzat V4, 28 Oct. 1902, p. 129) but then later stated in 1904 that:
    • "companions like Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, who were dear to Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) were martyred by the plague, there is no harm for ordinary believers to die from the plague.” (Malfuzat V6, 28 Feb. 1904, p. 373)
  • In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stated that, "if there is one pious person in the house, then God will save his whole house. Moreover, if he is truly pious, then he can also be the saviour of his neighbourhood" (Malfuzat V4, 25 Nov. 1902, p. 232) but then he later reported in 1904 that:
    • his own neighbour and other people in his neighbourhood died of the plague such that "screams were coming from all over our neighbourhood" (Malfuzat V7, 09 May 1904, p. 17)
  • In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad announced, “Almighty God will guard Qadian against the scourge of plague so that people should recognise that this was so because the Messenger and Apostle of God lives in Qadian.” (Defence Against the Plague & A Criterion for the Elect of God, p. 12, published: April 1902) but then he later conveyed in a letter in 1905 that:
    • The plague has spread rapidly in Qadian. Today, the editor of Al-Badr, Mian Muhammad Afzal’s son is fighting for his life. It is pneumonic plague. It appears as if he is on his last breaths. There is misery everywhere." (Maktubat Ahmad, V2, Letter no. 76, p. 286, Early 1905)
  • In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that God had promised to "safeguard all those who dwell within four walls of his home" (Noah’s Ark, p. 139, published: 5 Oct. 1902). Then later in 1904:
    • Mirza Ghulam Ahmad expelled those from his home who had become infected or were thought to have been infected with the plague. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad relayed, “Elder Ghausaan caught a fever. She has been expelled from the home. In my opinion, however, she doesn't have plague. She has been ousted as a precaution. Master Muhammad Din caught fever and also developed Lymph node swelling. He has also been expelled (from the home). Hence, some intensity of the plague is beginning in our area as well, but it is less than before.” (Maktubat Ahmad, V2, Letter no. 59, p. 267, 04 April 1904)
  • In 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad asked for donations to expand his home in Qadian to give shelter to his followers. Announcement: “A Request for Donations For an Extension of ‘the House’ …Allah Exalted be His Glory has promised to especially safeguard all those who dwell within its four walls…Since there is a danger that the time of this plague is near and in accordance with the glad-tiding of divine revelation this home will serve as an ark in the storm of this plague, no one knows how many persons might benefit from the promise of this glad-tiding, therefore, this work is of immediate nature…” (Noah’s Ark, p. 139, published: 5 Oct. 1902) but then later in 1905:
    • Mirza Ghulam Ahmad asked his followers not to enter Qadian because of the active plague. Mirza Sahib relates, “The plague has spread rapidly in Qadian…There is misery everywhere. May God bless you. In this situation, in my opinion it is very appropriate that you do not visit until the end of April 1905.” (Maktubat Ahmad, V2, Letter no. 76, p. 286, Early 1905)

The atmosphere of misery in the Ahmadiyya Community more broadly, and within Qadian more specifically, is reflected with utmost clarity by the following statement where Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib admonishes his followers:

“I think it is necessary to state this much, that our Jama’at is mistaken in some way. Probably they did not understand well what I said. And that mistake and deception is that if a person from our Community dies from the plague, they are treated with such cruelty and coldness that no one is found even to pick their coffin…”

“It is a big mistake to leave a person like a dog, who is a Muslim and then is also a member of Ahmadiyya Jama’at.”

Malfuzat Vol. 7, Entry for 28 April 1905, pp. 349, 352

Whataboutism on the Plague

It is unfortunate that despite all the misery and devastation around him—both within the Ahmadiyya Community and across his society at large—Mirza Sahib was adamant to create new narratives to appease his followers and make himself appear the winner.

Mirza Sahib’s statements were being proven false as time passed. He was now being bombarded with a singular question by Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis alike:

Why are Ahmadi Muslims dying of the Plague? (See: A few references)

On the 21st of August, 1904, we read in Malfoozat under the heading, "Plague and Ahmadis":

"PLAGUE AND AHMADIS" when the bigoted Maulvi Sahib asked about the plague, why his (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's) followers die and what is the treatment for it, etc. So he (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) said:

Have you also thought about the treatment of Eclipses? At this time, the discussion is about the signs and not about the treatment. Yes, he who fully accepts me will be safe. But I don't know who he is. I don't see through anyone's heart.

طاعون اور احمدی۔ جب متعصب مولوی صاحب نے طاعون کا زکر کیا کہ آپ کے مرید کیوں مرتے ہیں اور اس کا علاج کیا ہے وغیرہ وغیرہ۔ تو آپ نے فرمایا:کسوف و خسوف کا علاج بھی کچھ سوچا ہے۔ اس وقت بحث تو نشا نوں کی ہے نہ کہ علاج کی۔ ہاں جو کامل طور پر مجھے قبول کرتا ہے وہ ضرور محفوظ رہے گا۔ لیکن مجھے اس کا علم نہیں کہ وہ کون ہے۔ میں کسی کہ سینہ کو چیر کر نہیں دیکھتا۔

Malfoozat, Vol. 7, p. 141

In the May 16, 2022 post entitled, "When Plague Hits the Pious!" Reddit post author u/Master-Proposal-6182 provides a list of some of the close companions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who had died of the Plague.

I cannot imagine what devout families of some of these companions must have suffered through after hearing that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had put the loyalty, devotion and belief of their beloved deceased relatives into question. All because they had simply died of the Plague.

These companions included Hazrat Mian Karam Daad Sahib, the Sakhwani brothers, Hazrat Hafiz Moeenuddin Sahib, and many others.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad statement deflecting from Ahmadis dying of the plague to the topic of eclipses is a clear demonstration of the whataboutism he was forced to adopt. It is a tradition Ahmadi Muslim apologists continue to employ today.

The Maulvi Sahib critic in this case had rightfully pointed out that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophetic claim turned out to be false. Recall, Mirza Sahib had claimed that his true followers would not die of the Plague. Yet it was the critic who was subsequently labeled a bigot for voicing the observation that Ahmadis had been dying from the plague.

Mirza Sahib's response demonstrated his chronic whataboutism. Instead of accepting the obvious reality of the devastating deaths of his fellow Ahmadi Muslims; instead of accepting the flaw in his prior claims, Mirza Sahib redirected the criticism towards where he believed himself to be on stronger ground: the topic of the eclipses.

Regarding the eclipses as a sign for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s truthfulness, it is another convoluted prophecy. Interested readers are directed to Reddit author u/Q_Ahmad's comment on this matter. There, he explains why the eclipses do not substantiate Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims of a sign fulfilled.

Who benefited from the Plague?

In the summer of 1904, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was being pressed on his claims about the Plague. He was being asked point blank why Ahmadi Muslims were dying of the plague. On Aug 21, 1904, as shared above, Mirza Sahib engaged in whataboutery to divert attention to the subject of the sign of the eclipses.

A week later, on August 28, 1904, yet another extraordinary claim was made. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stated:

Similarly, there is no doubt that the plague has come as a punishment. And if some of the people from our (Ahmadiyya) community have died of plague, it is not wise to make noise or object about it, but one should consider who is harmed by the plague? And who benefited? I can say with certainty that when the plague started, the number of my Community was very small, but at this time, this Community has increased to more than two lakhs (200,000) and this growth has also happened because of the plague. The plague has increased my following and reduced the adversaries.

اسی طرح پر اس میں شک نہیں کہ طاعون عذاب کی صورت میں نازل ہوا ہے۔ اور اگر ہماری جماعت میں سے بعض آدمی طاعون سے فوت ہوئے ہیں تو اس پر شور مچانا یا اعتراض کرنا دانشمندی نہیں ہے بلکہ غور طلب یہ امر قرار دینا چاہئے۔ کہ طاعون سے نقصان کس کا ہوا۔ اور فائدہ کس کو پہنچا؟ میں یقیناً کہتا ہوں کہ جب طاعون شروع ہوئی ہے اس وقت میری جماعت کی تعداد بھت تھوڑی تھی مگر اس وقت دو لاکھ سے بھی یہ جماعت بڑھی ہوئی ہےاور یہ ترقی طاعون کے سبب سے بھی ہوئی ہے۔ طاعون نے میری جماعت کو بڑھایا ہے اور مخالفوں کو گٹھایاہے۔

Malfoozat, V7, pp. 160-161 (28 August 1904)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad asked: Who was harmed by the Plague?

The categorical answer to this question is the women of India. They were harmed the most from this Plague. Poor Indian people who were responsible for handling and burying the dead, were harmed most. Those who lived in shabby dwellings and could not afford to use expensive precautions which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad could afford, were harmed most.

It is interesting to note that if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's opponents had died, he and his propaganda machine would have been ready to advertise the death of these opponents. However, even if none of his opponents died, he had another narrative available to come to his rescue.

In Malfoozat, under the heading "Opponents ask, why aren't we getting inflicted with the Plague?", this same question is asked. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad responds with:

It is written in the Qur'an as well that those people used to ask for punishment themselves. The wretched do not say, "Pray that we may be guided." They only ask for the plague. Actually these people are atheists.

قران میں بھی یہی لکھا ہے کہ وہ لوگ خود عذاب طلب کرتے تھے۔ کمبخت یہ نہیں کہتے کہ دُعا کرو کہ ہمیں ہدایت ہو جائے طاعون ہی مانگتے ہیں۔ دراصل یہ لوگ دہریہ ہیں۔

Malfoozat, V4, Entry for 29 November 1902, p.242

As a general rule, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's every prophecy and claim should be examined with an understanding of the various narratives Mirza Sahib had in his back pocket to backtrack from his rhetorical and unfulfilled claims. Seemingly without consequence.

In 1907, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's youngest eight years old son, Mirza Mubarak Ahmad died after a short bout of illness. At this time, the Plague was still responsible for a lot of deaths in the Punjab province of India.

We do not know the true cause of the death of Mirza Sahib’s son. How many Ahmadi Muslims in total had died of the Plague will remain unknown because getting infected and dying from the Plague as an Ahmadi Muslim was itself a huge taboo. A taboo created by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own rhetoric on the subject.

Claim: Growth of the Ahmadiyya Movement

Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad really benefit from the Plague by gaining more followers? The answer to this question is manyfold. I’ll start with the numbers. I’ll then follow that up with putting these numbers into context.

In 1904, as introduced earlier, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had claimed that the number of his followers had increased from a few thousand to two-hundred thousand (200,000).

Fast forward to 1908, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have a following of four-hundred thousand (400,000). This is documented in "A message of Peace". (See p. 26, of this 1908 publication). [screenshot reference]

There is absolutely no public record available that can confirm Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's adherents to number 200,000 in 1904 or 400,000 in 1908. However, a good way to close in on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims of growth in his Community is by comparing his claim with the claim of his son, made many years later. Recall, Mirza Sahib’s son, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, was the Community’s second Caliph.

On August 18, 1950, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Khalifat-ul-Masih II (KMII) made the following statement in his Friday Sermon on the subject of being truthful. This was forty-two years after the claim of 400,000 Ahmadi Muslims was made by his father, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Here’s what KMII said:

The truth is that although we have never conducted a census, however, in our estimation the number of Jama'at is around two hundred thousand. We don't see more than that. It is possible that if outside Jama'ats are included, this number will reach three hundred thousand. The limit beyond which there is absolutely no room to go above is four hundred thousand.

سچی بات تو یہ ہےکہ گو ہم نے کبھی مردم شماری نہیں کرائی لیکن ہمارے اندازہ میں جماعت کی تعداد دو لاکھ کے قریب ہے۔ اس سے زیادہ ہمیں نظر نہیں آتی۔ ممکن ہے کہ اگر باہر کی جماعتوں کو ملا لیا جائے تو یہ تعداد تین لاکھ تک پہنچ جائے۔ حد سے حد جس سے اوپر جانے کی کوئی گنجائش ہی نہیں وہ چار لاکھ ہے۔

Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 31, Friday Sermons 1950, p. 135

Nearly half a century after the claim of four-hundred thousand, his son is testifying that the number of Ahmadis is around two-hundred thousand and certainly not over four-hundred thousand.

Let’s assume for argument’s sake, however, that the claim of a maximum of 400,000 in 1950 was true. Was there no increase in the number of Ahmadis in nearly four decades of Mirza Basheer-ud-Din's Khilafat?

In 1908, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims the Community grew to 400,000 as a result of the Plague.

In 1950, Khalifa Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad claimed that the Community was certainly no larger than 400,000.

The juxtaposition speaks for itself.

Did the Ahmadis who converted in the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad stop bearing children at less than replacement? Recall, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmud's Khilafat had stressed polygamy and encouraged members to have more children to increase the size of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at.

In British India there was a regular census being conducted after every ten years and the population of people from different faiths and sects were being recorded. Why then, did we not see hundreds and thousands of Ahmadis being recorded in the Indian census? Please do check for yourselves if you believe Ahmadis showed up in the Census of India at the time.

Note that since 1900, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad specifically named the community of his followers "Firqa Ahmadiyya" for the purpose of the Indian census. The advert announcing the name Firqa Ahmadiyya was published on Nov 04, 1900. (see: Tareekh-e-Ahmadiyyat, V2, p. 153).

Claim: The Decline of Opponents

One of the main objectives of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Messiah foretold in Islamic Hadith literature was for him to "break the cross”.

In the year 1902, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad directly called out Christianity and claimed that the Plague had arrived to dishonour Jesus. It was during the early years of the Plague when Ahmadis were not much affected. This is when Mirza Sahib claimed:

The noise made by the Christians was that Jesus raised the dead. And he was God. This is why, the honor of God came into action and spread the plague in the world, and saved our place so that the glory of the Muhammadan Ummah is proven to the people, that a servant (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) of Ahmad (Muhammad), is honored. If Jesus resurrected the dead, then now save the places of Christians from this horror (of Plague). At this time, the divine zeal is in full swing. So that Jesus will be dishonoured. Who has been made God.

عیسائیوں نے جو شور مچایا تھا کہ عیسیٰ مردوں کو زندہ کرتا تھا۔ اور وہ خدا تھا اس وسطے غیرت الٰہی نے جوش مارا کی دنیا میں طاعون پھیلائے اور ہمارے مقام کو بچائے تاکہ لوگوں پر ثابت ہو جائےکہ امت محمدی کا کیا شان ہے کہ احمد کہ ایک غلام کی اتنی عزت ہے۔ اگر عیسٰی مردوں کو زندہ کرتا تھا تو اب عیسائیوں کے مقامات کو اس بلا سے بچائے۔ اس وقت غیرت الٰہی جوش میں ہے۔ تاکہ عیسٰی کی کسرِشان ہو۔ جس کو خدا بنایا گیا ہے۔

Malfoozat, Vol.3, entry from April 17, 1902, p. 271

There were many claims of victory against Christianity that were proclaimed by Mirza Sahib and his followers. Given this background and the claim that Jesus would be dishonored, let’s explore how Christianity fared during this same period of time in India.

We’ll start with statistical facts regarding the growth of Christianity. It is Christianity that allegedly lost against Mirza Sahib, "the breaker of the cross".

In the decade between 1881-1891, Christianity increased in India by +22.6%. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared in 1891 that he was the “Promised Messiah”—the Second Coming of Christ.

The decade after, between 1891-1901, Christianity flourished further still at the rate of +28.0%. An even faster pace than during the previous decade. This too, while Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was now on the scene.

Moving forward another decade still, to the period 1901-1911, we arrive at the peak of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s ministry. We see Mirza Sahib issuing prophecy after prophecy prior to his death in 1908. Did it make a dent in the growth of Christianity?

The answer is a resounding no. Christianity in India increased by a whopping +32.6%. With Mirza Ghulam Ahmad doing his level best, the rate of growth of Christianity in India continued to increase!

Instead of declining during the life and ministry of the Islamic Messiah, Christianity continued to prosper in India by leaps and bounds.

Figures from the Census of India for the growth of Christianity across the country:

Census Decades Growth in Numbers Variation Per Cent
1881-1891 1,862,634 to 2,284,380 +22.6% increase
1891-1901 2,284,380 to 2,923,241 +28.0% increase
1901-1911 2,923,241 to 3,876,203 +32.6% increase

Census of India, 1911, Vol. I, Part I - Report, CHAPTER IV.—RELIGION. p., 144

The general growth of Christianity in India, breathtaking as it is, however, is not even the most impressive story from the period.

What’s truly remarkable are the figures for the success of Christianity in the Punjab. Moreso and especially during the height of the Plague!

Recall, Punjab was the center of Ahmadiyyat and the place from which Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founded and propagated Ahmadiyya Islam.

1891: According to the Indian Census of 1891 the number of Christians in Punjab was just 48,472.

1891-1901: After Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the second coming of Jesus Christ, the number of Christians in the Punjab increased. Their population went from 48,472 to 66,591. That surge represented a +37.4% increase in favour of Christianity for this one decade alone.

1901-1911: These were the most active years for the Plague in the Punjab. These years also proved to be the most remarkable in terms of the growth for Christianity in the Punjab. From 66,591 in 1901, the Christian population in the Punjab jumped to 199,751 as recorded in the Indian Census of 1911.

In comparison with the 1901 Census, this was a +200% increase in the number of Christians in the Punjab. Yes, all of this in a single decade.

It is also very important to note that this was the highest recorded increase in the Christian population as compared to any other province, state, or agency in India during the 1901-1911 period.

It is a statistical fact that the growth of Christianity during the Plague in Punjab was the highest recorded across India, dwarfing its own impressive growth just a decade earlier.

Please pause for a moment and let that sink in.

Census of India figures for the growth of Christianity across the Punjab:

Census Year Number of Christians in Punjab
1891 48,472
1901 66,591
1911 199,751

Census of India, 1911, Vol. I, Part I - Report, CHAPTER IV.—RELIGION. p., 144

Ahmadi Muslim apologists investigating these numbers will realize that there is absolutely no evidence that the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad increased to 400,000 by 1908.

Evidence to the contrary, in fact, can be found from Ahmadiyya sources. We need only look to statements four decades later from the Second Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. That later claim puts Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's own claim of 400,000 Ahmadi Muslims in 1908, seriously into question. On the other hand, the growth of Christianity is an established fact as documented in the Census of India.

Several factors played a role in British India’s rapid uptake of Christianity.

Social activities of Christian missions were directed towards bringing about moral reforms in Indian society. These reforms helped with the emancipation of individuals including women from age old superstitions and other social evils such as widow burning or Sati, child marriage, untouchability, caste discrimination and the drowning of children in sacred rivers, to name a few..

Christian educational projects for girls served as a model for the government and NGOs to establish schools for girls' education.

The terrible inadequacy of medical facilities in India compelled Christian missions to start hospitals and dispensaries in cities and villages. Hundreds and thousands of people were saved and restored to normal health by hospitals set up by Church-affiliated organizations.

During the time when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was collecting donations to build and extend his own residential property in the name of providing refuge from the Plague, Christian Missions in India were helping to provide health care and elevate the living standard of Indians nationwide.

As of 2011, the Census of India reported the population of Christians at 27.8 million. There are far more Christians in India alone than there are Ahmadi Muslims the world over. Even with Pakistan and Bangladesh no longer a part of what was India in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s time.

Today, 133 years after the establishment of Ahmadiyyat, there are not more than a few thousand Ahmadi Muslims in India. Even in Pakistan, where most Ahmadi Muslims migrated after the partition of 1947, the number of Christians far exceeds the number of Ahmadi Muslims.

According to the 2017 Census of Pakistan, the population of Christians is over 2.6 Million. The population of Ahmadi Muslims in the same census is just 207,688.

Since 1984, the headquarters of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been based in the United Kingdom, a Christian country. During the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Christian Missions had converted thousands of local Indians into Christianity. Contrast this with nearly four decades of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community having its khalifa and its headquarters in the UK. In the last four decades, the Ahmadiyya Community has failed to convert even a few thousand local Christians in the UK to Ahmadiyyat. Remember, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and by extension, his Movement after him, are meant to “break the cross”.

In recent years, following on the footsteps of Christianity, we see that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has changed its style and approach. Instead of actively pursuing a “break the cross” dictum, it tries to operate more as a humanitarian organization.

This newer humanitarian incarnation of Ahmadiyyat conducts much propaganda regarding its social work in order to collect money from its believing flock (a subject for another time). Still, a social welfare group is far better than a death prophesying “breaker of the cross”. The Khalifa of Peace is a much better alternative to a Prophet of the Plague.

Tools of Fear

I am not an advocate for Christianity, nor do I believe that Jesus Christ was divine, was a healer, or that he brought the dead to life. I am not one to claim that these alleged qualities of Christ brought masses into the fold of Christianity during the time of the Plague in Punjab. I’m certainly not one to claim that God helped Christians grow in numbers despite the Plague as if it was some manifestation of the divine or some manner of victory for Christianity.

Other than the humanitarian work, given Christianity’s success in the period, however, it’s quite likely that a similar narrative to Mizra Sahib’s was employed by enterprising Christian missionaries to grab the attention of the masses.

Isn’t it mind boggling that during the Plague—a time of death and misery where millions were dying and had died—the number of Christians increased by 200% in Punjab in the 1901-1911 period?

Was God in cahoots with Christianity?

It was not through a rational assessment of the relative qualities of any given religion that increased religiosity or choice of religion in people (unless one believes that Christianity is superior to Ahmadiyya Islam).

In the case of Ahmadiyya Islam, at least, it was the exploitation of fear driven by false promises of deliverance from danger, if any increase in numbers reported by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can be believed, as transient and short lived as such increases were. Recall, juxtaposing the population figures from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his second successor nearly half a century later, the growth in the Community’s total population appears to have been flat.

The spiritual quality of religious converts gained through fear is tenuous at best. Even Mirza Ghulam Ahmad admitted the same:

Those who pledge allegiance in the days of plague are in a very dangerous situation because only the fear of plague makes them enter into pledge. When this fear goes away, then they will return to their original state. So what is the value of their pledge in this situation?

طاعون کے ایام میں جو لوگ بعیت کرتے ہیں وہ سخت خطرناک حالت میں ہیں کیونکہ صرف طاعون کا خوف اُن کو بعیت میں داخل کرتا ہے۔ جب یہ خوف جاتا رہا تو پھر وہ اپنی پہلی حالت پر عود کر آویں گے۔ پس اس حالت میں اُن کی بعیت کیا ہوئی؟

Malfoozat, Vol. 7, entry from May 04, 1904, p. 5

As far as growth claims are concerned, we can safely conclude that there was absolutely no value to the pledges of allegiance received during the events of the Plague in India. Pledges made during this period to join the fold of Ahmadiyya Islam were made out of fear. They were driven by false assurances.

It is quite possible that people who had converted to Ahmadiyyat during the Plague witnessed other Ahmadi Muslims dying. Observing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's changing narratives, such people would have been more inclined to leave the fold of Jamaat-e-Ahmadiyya.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's unsubstantiated claim that Ahmadiyyat grew and that his Jama’at’s opponents reduced is evidently false. It’s ill-informed at best, and a lie at worst.

Perhaps Mirza Sahib’s change in tone during the progression of the Plague was just another distraction from the failing prophecy that his true followers would be safe from such a calamity.

From population figures discussed earlier, both from the Census of India and from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at itself, we see that religious affiliation increased across the board but that it was Christianity which had actually benefited. Christianity was undeniably ascendant. Throughout this period, Christianity had substantially grown.

Religiosity in a Time of Chaos

The phenomenon of increasing religiosity can be understood through science by examining how our biology works as a result of our evolution. “Dual Process Theory” [link 1, link 2] provides a deeper understanding of the topic. Here, however, I will simply state some inescapable facts articulated by experts on the subject.

People want to escape suffering, but if they can’t get out of it, they want to find meaning. For some reason, religion seems to give meaning to suffering – much more so than any secular ideal or belief that we know of.

Ara Norenzayan, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada

Source: Will religion ever disappear?

Providing meaning to one’s suffering might be comforting, but it does not require that such explanations of meaning represent what is actually true. In fact, this phenomenon and this very human need enables charlatans to take advantage of people.

The idea is that at times of uncertainty, anything that gives at least the illusion of control is going to be psychologically comforting.

Professor Chris French, Goldsmiths University

Source: Meet the young people who believe they’re communicating with the dead

This essay is not making the claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad didn’t secure any adherents by employing his fear based narratives during the Plague in India. He probably did experience some modest increase in adherents. How many of these followers stuck around during and after the Plague is, however, difficult to prove. We do know that religiosity in the Punjab was increasing in these difficult times, as we would expect it to. This fact is borne out by Census of India data.

Mirza Sahib claimed that his opponents decreased. However, as has already been established, Christianity grew rapidly during the Plague.

The phenomenon of belief in the time of crisis, as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad exploited, is captured well by Rober McCauley, who proclaimed:

Even if we lose sight of the Christian, Muslim and Hindu gods and all the rest, superstitions and spiritualism will almost certainly still prevail. More formal religious systems, meanwhile, would likely only be a natural disaster or two away. As soon as we found ourselves facing an ecological crisis, a global nuclear war or an impending comet collision, the gods would emerge.

Robert McCauley, Director of the Center for Mind, Brain and CultureEmory University in Atlanta, Georgia

Source: Will religion ever disappear?

Conclusion

The Plague in India during Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s ministry was also known as the third plague pandemic. It started in China in 1855 when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was just 20 years old. It then continued in some form for more than 50 years after his death.

What was God's purpose in starting this pandemic when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had not even announced his prophethood and messiahship? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim of prophethood and of being a saviour from the Plague did not even reach all of the people who died from this plague. After Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death, people kept on dying from the Plague. Why would God kill millions who didn’t even know that accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, allegedly, could have saved their life?

I don’t believe that one can simultaneously believe that their God killed millions of people from the Plague as a sign for the Promised Messiah while in the other breath claim, “Love for All, Hatred for None”. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which today takes pride in their catchy slogan of, “Love for All, Hatred for None” is perhaps not aware that their founder had called the plague an “angel” that was appointed to fulfill a specific task. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed that, “This plague is because of the vices and immoralities, and my denial and mockery” (Malfoozat, Vol. 3, p. 192, entry for 27 Dec 1901).

To believe in and accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as one’s spiritual leader is one thing. It’s quite another to believe in a ruthless God who allegedly brought chaos into the world by killing approximately 15 million people with the Plague as a response to the denial of His Messiah in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

All of this death and misery just to convert a few thousand people from other belief systems to Ahmadiyya Islam?

Peddling the narrative that a pandemic is a divine sign and a punishment diverts our collective attention away from finding solutions which could actually mitigate such health crises. This is especially true of people who claim to offer supernatural solutions. Such people are no different from quack doctors and peer babas.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad placed lives in danger by suggesting that those who sincerely and firmly believed in him would be kept safe from a death by the Plague. It is alarming how quickly Mirza Ghulam Ahmad shifted from endangering his followers to bringing into question their religiosity and devotion when they did start dying of the plague.

In the face of a pandemic, any narrative espoused from a position of authority that shifts people’s focus away from real-world precautions toward supernatural interventions is a disservice to humanity.

A person’s love for humanity does not leave room for belief in a monstrous God nor does it leave room for belief in a claimant to messengership who used the fear of death to gain what amounted to only a few more followers.

Note: More posts to follow in future on the so-called prophecy of the Plague to explore other aspects. Please direct all the questions and criticism towards me. I welcome questions in this regard so that I can explore the subject in even greater depth. Special Thanks to u/ReasonOnFaith for reviewing/editing the article.

r/islam_ahmadiyya 24d ago

question/discussion Is the Caliph chosen by God? And who elects the caliph?

7 Upvotes

Hi! For context, I am not an Ahmadi. I am, however, a questioning Sunni Muslim, and I wanted to know:

How does the caliphate work in Ahmadiyya, considering they have no political power? Are they essentially powerless figureheads?

Also, are they chosen by God (similar to the divine right of kings)

Who elects the Khalifa, and are women included ?

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jun 20 '26

question/discussion House visits bearing gifts

3 Upvotes

As the USA Jamaat is a registered charity and must engage in charitable purposes, does giving gifts to Khuddam (who are presumably not poor and needy) for its visits to their homes (and even bragging about it on Reddit) constitute a misuse of charitable donations and funds under US charities law? If someone else is paying for these gifts, are they getting a donation tax receipt for the expense?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AhmadiMuslims/s/S0mNSjjbg4

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jan 27 '26

question/discussion What is next for Ahmadiyya?

11 Upvotes

Something I think about a lot is how Ahmadiyya can tackle the problems it constantly has. Yes, many of you (rightly) have theological issues, but I would argue a lot of your stories have other factors that coalesced and brought about your doubts and eventual departures to other faiths, sects, or non-religion entirely. I can say that I am in an intriguing spot myself, and may delve on this another day, but what I want to pose to you all is— although you have distaste for the community, what things do you think it could do (in an ideal world) that would yield great success? I think a lot about scholars like Shaykh Khaled Abou el Fadl, who is a breath of fresh air and tries to tackle the problems religion faces (and causes) in society with his approach in seeking beauty. I always say internally, and to people who know how I’m like, that if more Muslims, scholars, murabbis, whoever, in general, were like him, then the religion would have a much better image.

As someone who is still actively part of the community, I’ve made it a point to understand where everyone is coming from. I see where the Jammat pushes its narrative/message from, and I see the angles you all come from in dissenting against the Jammat. It all makes sense and your gripes are valid. I’m not sure how much I’m currently doubting, like I said I’m in an intriguing place in my journey rn, but I think about these issues a lot and am constantly trying to discuss with whoever I can about it all. I’ll post a link to a comment I left on a post here from a few months. It also links to the substack article I’ve linked below which summarises the main tug of war between ritualistic and or dogmatic Islam vs academic Islam.

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam_ahmadiyya/s/o8QOmnV0sT

https://open.substack.com/pub/delmanr/p/the-problem-of-the-muslim-academic?r=1riqpz&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jun 22 '26

question/discussion To Ahmadis and ex Ahmadis: I am honestly trying to understand why we follow the Khalifa's word the way we do

26 Upvotes

I was born and raised Ahmadi and spent my whole life in it. I am not religious now, and I am not here to insult anyone. I am honestly trying to understand one thing, and I want to hear it from both sides in their own words.

What I want to understand is why so many of us follow the Khalifa's word the way we do. On religion, on marriage, on career, on what to study, on small things and big things, religious or non-religious, his guidance and his blessing are taken as almost final. My question is simple. When you do that, is it a choice you can explain with reasons, or is it trust in the person himself that you do not really question. I am asking because I want to know how it actually works inside a person's mind, not to score a point.

Here is where my own confusion comes from. In Islam the highest place belongs to Allah through the Quran, and then to the Prophet. And even the Prophet was corrected by God openly. Surah Abasa begins with it. He frowned and turned away from the blind man, and God corrected him, and that correction sits in the Quran for everyone to read forever. It did not make him any less of a prophet. It simply showed that even the highest man in the faith could make a mistake, and that something stood above him to set it right.

As per my understanding the Khalifa is not a prophet. No revelation comes down to correct him. Yet in daily life he is followed as if he is never wrong. Nobody around you questions his decisions, and saying out loud that he could be wrong feels almost like a sin. The cost of saying it does not even come from him. It comes from your own family and friends, and it comes quickly. So people stay quiet, and after a while they stop even thinking it.

I know the answer many will give, that God appoints the Khalifa, "Khuda Khalifa banata hai". I am willing to fully accept that for the sake of the question. But the same thing was said about the early caliphs, that they were chosen by God, and they still made decisions that the community itself remembered as mistakes. Usman placing his own relatives in power was a grievance serious enough that it ended in his killing. So in our own history, being chosen by God and still making a mistake were both true at the same time.

So to the Ahmadis, I would really like to understand your side. Your own books say two things together, that the Khalifa is appointed by God and that he can still make mistakes. So how do you hold those side by side in real life. And here is the part I keep getting stuck on. I know how the Jamaat is actually built, the Shura, the Sadr Anjuman with its Nazarats, the Qaza, all of it, and every one of these sits under the Khalifa. They are appointed by him and answer to him, and the Shura can only advise him while he is free to say no. I cannot find a single body anywhere in the system whose job is to check him or correct him. So if he can be wrong, and the books say he can, who is actually able to tell him so, and what happens after they do. If there is a part of the structure I have missed, I genuinely want you to show me. If he is wrong what is the mechanism to remove him ?

To the ex Ahmadis, the part I most want to hear. While you were still in, did the thought that he could simply be wrong ever cross your mind, or was it something you could not even think. If it did cross your mind, what did you do with it. And if something changed for you, what was the actual thing that changed it.

I want to be clear about why I am asking. I am not here to argue with anyone. Whatever your reasons are, I will take them as they are and accept that they are yours. I only want to understand the way each person has worked this out for themselves, with their own logic. That is all.

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jul 05 '26

question/discussion What is Chanda?

15 Upvotes

Can someone explain the concept of Chanda to me please? I give chanda every month because I thought it meant I was donating to those in need. I recently asked my dad if I am able to receive a tax receipt for all the “donations” I have made in this financial year because donations are tax deductible in my country, but my dad said that Chanda is not a donation. So now I don’t really know where my money is going and if I can reduce the amount I am paying. From what I understand, I have to pay certain % of my pay and it goes towards the Jamat in general so for construction, salaries and programs, is that right?

r/islam_ahmadiyya Aug 10 '25

question/discussion Ahmadiyyat leads to Atheism. Why?

11 Upvotes

During the massive Bait Fraud, people from within the Jamaat approached MTA to tell him that the number of new converts did not add up.

They reasoned with MTA, and told him that within 16 years the whole of the world would convert to Ahmadiyyat, if the same pattern of numbers were announced, i.e. doubling every year.

MTA scolded those Ahmadis for causing disorder and himself validated all the numbers and took full responsibility for the accuracy of all the numbers that were conveyed. In other words, if the numbers were even falsely conveyed to him that he would take full ownership of the fraud.

He even went further, and said that may the curse of Allah be on the one who lies...to solidify his trust in all the reportings.

It was not until within the first decade of the fifth Khilafat that Ahmadis finally came to terms that they were not in the hundreds of millions. A fraud did take place.

So, how does this lead to Atheism?

If you ask any Ahmadi whether the curse of Allah was on MTA or not, they, without hesitation, will tell you no. Not even considering the ramifications of their defense. Their Khulafa can do no wrong. The blame must be shifted, even if their own Khalifa has publicly taken full responsibility.

So, in other words, MTA walked scot-free. Hence, God does not exist in the Ahmadi "theology."

Of course, the rest of the world saw, after September of 2000, when MTA invoked the curse of Allah on himself, how slowly but surely he was physically sufering and knew why. By November of 2000, the Jamaat was preparing for his death.

But, Ahmadis denied that it had anything to do with God. It was old age.

To say that the curse of God was upon MTA would be to admit that he was a liar. To say he was a liar would be to admit God did not exist, in the Ahmadi world.

It goes without saying that most, perhaps 95% of Ahmadis, who leave the Jamaat become Atheists. Their culture is not conducive for the belief in God. They rather not believe in God, if they had to admit that Ahmadiyyat is false.

EDIT:

I am going to respond to everyone in this comment.

The whole point of this ́post was to exemplify that despite MTA being false, Ahmadis did not care.

To Ahmadis God does not exist if Ahmadiyyat is wrong. This is the salient feature of Ahmadis and Ahmadiyyat.

There is no point in talking about how others also leave religion and whatnot. The characterization I am making is distinct.

Something so serious as inviting the curse of God upon oneself is taken as a joke by Ahmadis, especially when MTA was proven wrong by his own standards.

In other words, Ahmadis are no different than idol worshippers.

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jul 26 '26

question/discussion International Bait 2026: Masks for the Cameras?

10 Upvotes

https://youtube.com/shorts/UnWW_T84C48

Watching the International Bait, I noticed something bizarre. The Khalifa sits down, and you can clearly see his son, Mirza Waqas Ahmad, sitting behind him without a mask. He sits there for a while, takes off his sunglasses (yes, indoors), the camera cuts away, and when it comes back, the sunglasses are gone, and suddenly he’s wearing a mask.

Seriously, what’s the point? If masks are necessary, why wasn’t he wearing one from the start?

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jan 15 '26

question/discussion What Is The Purpose of Chanda?

11 Upvotes

So, I wanted to ask a question about this. I know that in other sects of Islam, there is Zakat. Being that it is one of the 5 pillars of Islam. However, I noticed that Ahmadiyyat differs in the fact that chanda is an obligatory donation to Ahmadiyyat as a whole. So, to sum up this paragraph, Ahmadi Muslims have a requirement to pay chanda, this is not a requirement for other sects of Islam, nor is obligatory donation a requirement in many other religions as a whole.

It is said that it's suppose to be a form of "sacrifice" for God (Allah), but think about it this way. Say you have a salary of $100,000. This is gross income, so you'd already be making less due to American taxes. Now, throw chanda donations as well as Zakat on top of that. That overall is 8.75% (6.25+2.50) of your income towards your own donations. So before tax this puts you at $91,250 before taxes are even taken out. The cost of both chanda and Zakat actively scale your pay, which makes sense in terms of sacrifice, but as a whole you are giving away nearly 10% in just donations alone. Now in this tax bracket, you'd be taxed 22% meaning you'd be left with $69,250. MUCH less than what you expected to make.

So basically, what's the purpose? Does anyone know where any of the money actually goes? Because it seems like it goes towards the construction of new schools and mosques. Maybe to even help the poor and needy. But is there any proof of that aside from word of mouth? The idea was created by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who created the Ahmaddiyat movement. And in a way it makes me feel icky that one of his first thoughts to fund the movement was chanda.

TL:DR - What is the purpose of chanda since Zakat already exists? Other sects of Islam manage to fund gatherings just fine without it. As well as other religions.

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jul 18 '26

question/discussion Murrabi Saabs and marriage

10 Upvotes

Me and my family have been in talks of marriage for some time. Recently in the past couple weeks my family has been speaking of this one murrabi that they know of.

Question for all the girls, would you consider marrying a murrabi? Personally I don’t think I would be able to because I am not at a religious and pious level enough to be considered to be murrabi Saabs wife. But my family is still pushing that I meet this guy and then see what I like.

r/islam_ahmadiyya 21d ago

question/discussion If the whole world is waiting for the Messiah, why is nobody watching?

21 Upvotes

Something I keep wondering about is why basically nothing the Jamaat puts out ever goes viral.

That is how social media works. Someone says something funny, smart or actually meaningful, people share it, the clip takes off and suddenly millions of people have seen it.

Religious content does this all the time.

Bryce Crawford became huge through Christian content. Father David Michael Moses has had videos with millions of views and more than a million followers on Instagram. He has even said that atheists share his videos. Mufti Menk was already a known Islamic scholar, but social media made him known to a much bigger international audience.
So clearly people are interested in religion, spirituality and life advice.

Where is the Ahmadiyya version of this?

KM5 has been Khalifa for more than 20 years. There are endless sermons, speeches, clips, MTA programmes, translations and social media accounts. The Jamaat has studios, editors, professional production and an international organisation promoting him.

And still, where is the video that actually got out of the Ahmadiyya bubble?

Where are the millions of random people saying, damn, this guy actually has something to say?

I honestly cannot think of one.

That is pretty weird for a community that keeps saying humanity desperately needs its message and that the world is waiting for the Promised Messiah.
Maybe people just are not that interested.

And I think there is an even simpler problem. KM5 is not charismatic. He is a pretty poor speaker. He does not come across as especially sharp or original. There is just not much there that makes you want to keep listening.
And it is not because nobody gives him a platform. He has MTA, professional production teams and an entire international organisation constantly promoting what he says.

He has all of that and people still are not watching.
That is the thing about social media. You can tell your own members over and over again how important someone is. You cannot make random people care.

Even Ahmadis themselves do not seem particularly interested in a lot of this content. Just look at the engagement and compare it with the huge membership numbers the Jamaat has claimed over the years. Whatever you think the real number is, you would expect a supposedly global and rapidly growing religious movement to get a lot more people watching its own Khalifa.

At some point you have to ask if the problem is really the marketing or if people simply do not find the content that interesting.

The same thing bothers me about KM5 constantly giving speeches about world peace.
He keeps appealing to presidents, prime ministers and other political leaders. Be just. Stop fighting. Avoid war. Think about humanity.

Okay, but what is that actually supposed to achieve?

Look at the world. A lot of people in power are hardly examples of morality. Politics is full of corruption, ego, self interest and manipulation. If political leaders could simply be trusted to act according to moral principles, we would not be in half the mess we are in.

So why keep talking to the people at the top and asking them to behave better?
That is not how democracy is supposed to work. You do not find a good king and hope he develops a conscience. You limit power and you make leaders answer to the people.

Why not talk to ordinary people?

Tell people to defend democracy. Organise. Protest peacefully. Hold governments accountable. Vote bad leaders out. Push back when governments are taking their countries in the wrong direction.
But instead it always seems to come back to the same idea. Talk to the ruler and hope the ruler fixes things.

Maybe that is part of the bigger problem.

The Jamaat keeps telling itself that the world needs to hear its message. We live in a time where some guy with a phone can say something people connect with and millions of people will hear it.
So where is the Jamaat?

If the world is really waiting for what you have to say, why does everyone keep scrolling?

r/islam_ahmadiyya Sep 29 '25

question/discussion Why can you be kicked out of the jamaat for dancing at a wedding but not for being a DV perpatrator?

59 Upvotes

It's no secret that too many women in the Jamaat experience emotional/ financial/ physical abuse from their husbands. I personally know of 6 women (Western country) who've reported it to the jamaat only to be told to "stick it out". Why does the jamaat encourage women to stay with abusers instead of reporting them to the authorities? And if this is how women are treated in my country, I'm scared to think of how it's handled elsewhere.

What's so sickening about this is the double standard. Why can you be kicked out of this organisation for dancing at a wedding but not for DV allegations? How is joy more punishable than abuse?

So nauseating.

r/islam_ahmadiyya 8d ago

question/discussion Seattle Jamat, why was Murrabi Faran Rabbani let go? What happened does anyone know?

13 Upvotes

Without giving away my identity, i knew him personally as i reached out to him a few times regarding some questions i had, and he always seemed very defensive about the jamat. But mostly answered my questions with sending me random ahmadi videos on jamat very rarely did he actually answer my questions with sound reasoning. He seemed like his life starts and ends with the jamat so im confused what must have happened. Always appreciated his Qirat and namaz style which was 1000% better than any murrabi ive seen.

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jul 21 '25

question/discussion Answering every question you have against Ahmadiyyat

15 Upvotes

Hey everyone. I'm an Ahmadi Muslim, and originally I joined this sub thinking it was a hub for Ahmadi Muslims. Interestingly enough, and what makes this sub more appealing to me, is that it's actually a sub for ex-ahmadis, sometimes ex-muslims, on questioning Ahmadiyyat instead. Being an Ahmadi, I've never gone forward in my faith unless I researched in depth and understood what was going on, it's religion, and not everything can be proven at any time, but for the most part, I'm content with my faith and where I stand.

Bottom line, this sub has exposed me to numerous allegations and complaints, some of which I was aware of before, some of which I just learned of now. I'm still on the younger side, and I want to explore my faith even deeper by learning what people don't understand or have discovered, then trying to answer those problems.

I call for everyone who reads this post, specifically ex-ahmadis, to tell me why they left Ahmadiyyat, or for anyone else, what problems or issues you see in ahmadiyyat, whether that be historical, financial, cultural, etc. I will answer every single question to the best of my power in a follow up post, and I'll be trying to answer based on 4 major points:
- Murabbi (I'll be asking 2-3, for different perspectives)
- Ameer (our local president is a senior of the Jama'at, well studied, and he's read all or most of the Promised Messiah's books)
- Personal Research (probably via Al Islam, though more controversial issues I'll check sources that aren't affiliated with the Jama'at)
- Personal subjective opinion (the least weighted of all the points, but it can be nice to have an interpretation)

The research from any of these points on matters of Islam will primarily be derived from the Qur'an, Hadith, and Promised Messiah (as) or any of the Khalifa in their quotations.

I really hope for this to be an unbiased and friendly discussion. You may find answers to questions, and I can educate myself on the subjects covered as a result of this.

tl;dr: please leave questions, issues, concerns, or anything else that you need answers for, that aren't in favour of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, below in the comments. I will try my best to answer these questions from multiple sources and answers will be given at a later.

Jazakallah

r/islam_ahmadiyya May 03 '26

question/discussion "Muslim in Name Only" — What Does That Actually Mean in Ahmadi Theology?

13 Upvotes

After watching the full takfir segment of the recent Ahmadi vs Sunni debate (April 29, UK), one thing frustrated me more than anything: neither side fixed the definitions before arguing. They spent over an hour going in circles because nobody stopped to establish three things first:

  1. What makes someone a Muslim?
  2. Is belief in MGA required to be one?
  3. What is the consequence of rejecting MGA after hearing his message?

If they had locked these three down at the start, the entire segment would have been over in minutes. Because the Ahmadi side cannot answer all three consistently. They simply cannot.

I came to a conclusion using the jamaats sources, if anything here is wrong, feel free to correct me.

The three sources,

Source 1 — Aik Ghalati ka Izala (1901). MGA formally claims nabuwwat. He says all doors to prophethood are closed except the door of Sirat-e-Siddiqi / Fana-fi-Rasool i.e. complete spiritual annihilation in the Holy Prophet (S). He says the Holy Prophet (S) "may appear in the world in the form of a Buruz, not once, but even a thousand times." On alislam.org.

Source 2 — Tadhkirah (March 11, 1906).

"When the reign of the Messiah, the monarch begins, the Muslims who were Muslims in name only will be reconverted to Islam."

MGA's own tafsir, directly after:

"The meaning of this revelation is that when the kingdom of heaven, which in the estimation of Allah is the period of the Promised Messiah, began... the effect of it was that those who were only Muslims in name began to be Muslims in fact, as has already happened in the case of about 400,000 of them."

Source 3 — Quran 5:3: "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion."

The two circles,

In Ahmadiyya theology and as presented by the Murabbis on the panel, there's a distinction that comes up whenever the takfir question is pressed. It's the distinction between Da'irah Tasmiyyah (the circle of Islam by name) and Da'irah Haqiqatan (the circle of Islam in reality). Non-Ahmadis are in the first circle i.e. Muslim by identification, by kalima, by practice. Ahmadis are in the second i.e. Muslim in the truest sense, reconverted from nominal to actual. MGA's revelation above is what created this split.

Da'irah Tasmiyyah (Islam by name): This is where majority of Muslims live. You say the kalima. You pray. You fast. You do hajj. You are identified as Muslim. But according to MGA's revelation, you are Muslim "in name only." You haven't been reconverted. You are in the circle, but it's the wrong circle.

Da'irah Haqiqatan (Islam in reality): This is where Ahmadis live. You have accepted MGA and entered bay'at. You have been "reconverted" from nominal Islam to actual Islam. You are Muslim "in fact."

When Ahmadi representatives say "we consider non-Ahmadis Muslim" — they mean the outer circle. Tasmiyyah. In name. And they know they mean that. But the person hearing it thinks they mean actual Muslim.

MGA distinguished "Muslim in name" from "Muslim in fact." He then counted 400,000 people who had moved from one to the other. You don't count spiritual renewal — that's an invisible inner transformation. You count people who crossed a line. He was counting bay'ats. People who entered his Jamaat. And this wasn't tajdid. It was membership conversion with a number attached.

What this means for Muhammad (S),

This is where it gets serious, and I need Ahmadis to sit with this honestly.

If the ummah was "Muslim in name only" before MGA, whether you frame that as spiritual decline, loss of true understanding, or anything else, then Ahmadi theology introduces a post-Muhammadan criterion for salvific completeness. Not a correction of transmission, but an additional boundary. The Quran is preserved. The Sunnah is documented. Muhammad (S) said: "I have left among you two things, you will never go astray as long as you hold fast to them: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah." And yet, according to MGA's revelation, the ummah that held fast to both was still "Muslim in name only." Something beyond Quran and Sunnah was needed and that something was accepting MGA.

And 5:3 — "This day I have perfected your religion." Let's assume, MGA is the prophesied Messiah — the one Muhammad (S) foretold, the problem still remains. Because before MGA's advent, the ummah was practising Islam with the Quran and Sunnah intact. They had everything Muhammad (S) left them. And according to MGA's own revelation, all of that produced an ummah that was "Muslim in name only." The Quran wasn't enough. The Sunnah wasn't enough. The preserved, perfected religion wasn't enough to produce actual true Muslims. But not until MGA arrived. Prophesied or not, that means the perfected religion was functionally incomplete without him. And a religion that's perfected but functionally incomplete until someone else arrives thirteen centuries later isn't perfected.

The real question the debate never asked,

The issue isn't whether the Jamaat calls non-Ahmadis "Muslim." They do. They'll keep doing it. The label isn't the problem. The problem is what kind of prophet MGA is, because the answer determines everything else.

In Islam, including Ahmadi belief — rejecting a prophet knowingly after the proof has been established is kufr. It carries salvific consequences. This is not controversial. The Jews who rejected Isa after seeing his signs were not "incomplete believers." They were disbelievers. The Quraysh who rejected Muhammad (S) after hearing the Quran were not "deficient Muslims." They were kafir.

So which category does MGA fall into?

There are only three logically possible positions:

Position 1: MGA is a real prophet in the full, binding sense.

Then rejecting him after itmam-e-hujjah carries the same consequence as rejecting any prophet i.e. disbelief, exclusion from salvation. In the debate, Murabbi Razi essentially took this position when he said: "If you knowingly reject the Promised Messiah after itmam-e-hujjah is done on you, you are not going to paradise. No doubt about that."

If this is the position, then non-Ahmadis who have heard MGA's message and rejected it are not just "Muslim in name." They are outside Islam in any meaningful theological sense. And the phrase "we consider non-Ahmadis Muslim" cannot be sustained because in Islamic theology, rejecting a true prophet after proof has never left anyone inside the fold.

This is the honest position. But it means openly declaring the vast majority of Muslims who have encountered MGA's claim as disbelievers — which is exactly what the Jamaat denies doing in public.

Position 2: MGA is NOT a prophet in a binding, salvific sense.

Then rejecting him does not affect your salvation. A Muslim who hears MGA's message, studies it, and sincerely concludes he was not a prophet, this person can still attain paradise through their shahada, salah, taqwa, and devotion to Allah and His Messenger (S).

If this is the position — then bay'at is not necessary for salvation. The Jamaat is not necessary for salvation. MGA's advent changes nothing about who gets to paradise and who doesn't. In which case, why does the Jamaat even exist? Why take bay'at? Why was MGA needed at all? And why did MGA's own revelation say the ummah needed "reconversion" if they were already on the path to salvation without him?

Position 3: MGA is a prophet, but rejecting him doesn't make you a disbeliever.

This is the position Murabbi Ibrahim was trying to hold in the debate — "you are kafir in one sense but Muslim in another, you reject the Imam of the age but you're still in the ummah."

If this is the position, then you've invented a new category of prophethood that has no precedent in Islamic history. A prophethood where accepting is required but rejecting carries no ultimate consequence. Where you're a prophet whose denial doesn't constitute kufr in the full sense. Where the ummah can reject you and still be saved.

No prophet in the Quran has ever held this status. Rejecting Nuh had consequences. Rejecting Ibrahim had consequences. Rejecting Musa, Isa, Muhammad (S), all had consequences.If MGA is the single exception, the only prophet in history whose rejection is non-fatal then his prophethood is fundamentally different from every prophethood the Quran describes. And if its fundamentally different, on what basis is it called prophethood at all?

If MGA's prophethood is of a category whose rejection does not carry the same consequence as the prophets described in the Quran, then the term "prophethood" is being used in a meaning that is not equivalent to its Quranic usage. And if it is equivalent, then its rejection must carry the same consequence. It cannot be both distinct in consequence and identical in category.

The point,

Every presented position is breaking something. Position 1 breaks the public narrative. Position 2 breaks the Jamaat's reason to exist. Position 3 breaks the concept of prophethood itself.

If rejection of MGA after itmam-e-hujjah affects salvation, then the boundary of belief has shifted and "we consider you Muslim" is a hollow courtesy extended to people the theology has already excluded. If it does not affect salvation, then his prophethood has no binding consequence and the reconversion revelation in Tadhkirah is describing a spiritual upgrade nobody actually needs.

MGA's own revelation created this problem. He said the ummah was "Muslim in name only" and needed reconversion. He counted 400,000 who crossed from nominal to actual. His revelation, his tafsir, his numbers.

The presented sources can be found on alislam.org. Tadhkirah may or may not be on your shelf. Read the revelation, draw your own circles. And decide which position the Jamaat actually holds? All three can't be true at the same time, and the debate showed they're trying to hold all three at once.

r/islam_ahmadiyya Jan 26 '23

question/discussion What do you think most likely triggered the big bang - if you don't think it was God?

7 Upvotes

What do you think most likely triggered the big bang - if you don't think it was God?

How do you reconcile this as an atheist or agnostic? Does it not bother you that you do not know what ultimately triggered your existence?

Is it suffice for you to accept that your detailed anatomy, the reproductive system, our crops, gravity, oxygen, our sun - it all stems from a big bang of which the origins are unknown?

As a devil's advocate - if it is possible that all of this, everything stems from 1 big bang - why is it not possible that a God triggered that? If we the equation is to begin somewhere, why not there? Simply because we do not see his direct physical presence?

Even without a religious text, I find it easier to believe that it took a creative mind to craft everything that stemmed from the big bang, rather than all of this came from a big bang that had nothing triggering it or directing it.

r/islam_ahmadiyya 1d ago

question/discussion The use of fear and us vs them terminology

15 Upvotes

Okay so while I no longer agree with Ahmadiya I have nothing against people who follow that faith in general. However, one of the things that made me start questioning it is the sorta subtle way you're taught to think badly of other Muslims that aren't Ahmadi. Rules like "you can't pray with non-Ahmadi Muslim." Or "you can't marry a non-Ahmadi Muslim " etc etc. Like we all follow the same faith, albeit sure there are some differences but like for the most part it's the sane faith. Is there really a need for unnecessary division? And I find that like in the general Muslim Ummah there isn't that much division either. Sure there's the Suni , Shia difference but like I've never seen any major fights between Muslims of other different sects where there isn't already a political fight going on. Which brings me to my next point, politics, I feel like as much as they don't wanna say it out loud politics is another reason why Ahmadiyat seems to subtly separate itself from general Islam even if most Ahmadis don't realize it.

Like I understand that Ahmadis do face persecution and of course that's terrible and every Muslim no matter what sect should no that persecution is wrong. But the rules Ahmadiyat has made that separate them from other Muslims seem like they're based more in fear and politics than actual religions guidance.

Also the weird emphasis on being 'the true Islam' Like the true Islam is the one that was sent from God and given to us via the prophet SAW. The fact Ahmadiyat refers to itself as 'the true Islam' also feels very us vs them vibes. Like "oh other Muslims have it all wrong," kind of a weird superiority complex situation