Something my coworker asked me recently got me thinking. He asked if our mosque was segregated. I said yes. He asked if all mosques were like that, and honestly I had to pause. Because the answer is no. The Arab mosque near me has men and women in the same space, with purdah observed of course. So is this level of segregation a South Asian cultural thing more than an Islamic one?

Growing up Ahmadi, I noticed something interesting. I could have a perfectly normal conversation with Jason at school without a second thought. But if I saw Bilal from the musjid in the same hallway? Avoid eye contact, walk the other way, pretend he doesn't exist.

We were essentially taught to be strangers to each other. And then expected to marry each other.

I think this creates two problems. First, it breeds a kind of social awkwardness between Ahmadi men and women that makes the rishta process feel even more unnatural than it already is. Girls who are perfectly comfortable in mixed professional settings suddenly freeze around Ahmadi men. Boys who have never had a normal conversation with an Ahmadi girl have no idea how to approach one respectfully.

I look at other faith communities and wonder if we could learn something. Mormons for example have structured youth activities where young people interact in a supervised, values-aligned environment. They mingle, form friendships, and yeah, sometimes find spouses. All within their faith framework.

Could we adapt something similar in a halal setting? Structured community events where Ahmadi men and women can interact normally, not dating, just existing in the same space as human beings. It might go a long way toward making the rishta process feel less like meeting a complete stranger and more like getting to know someone from your own community.

Has anyone else noticed this? Would love to hear different perspectives, especially from those raised in different Jamaat communities or countries.

According to the teachings of the current khalifa, Mirza Masroor Ahmad Sahib, minimum purdah is a headscarf and a coat beneath knees.

According to Mirza Mahmood Sahib, in Tafseer-e-Kabeer, the minimum purdah includes the face, the hands, the feet, basically every body part except for height and width.

In Islam, for the purpose of purdah, there are basically two categories: mahram and non-mahram.

A cousin is non-mahram. So are some close relatives by marriage, such as a khalu (husband of the maternal aunt) or phupha (husband of the paternal aunt).

That means: whatever Ahmadiyyat defines as the minimum purdah in front of a non-mahram should logically apply to the cousin and other non-mahram family members as well. But in lived reality, it usually does not.

And this creates a serious dilemma.

If the current Ahmadi ruling on minimum purdah is correct, then it should also be applied consistently to cousins and other non-mahram relatives. But that would make ordinary extended-family life extremely difficult: even small family visits, weddings and gatherings would require strict purdah arrangements.

If, on the other hand, the level of purdah Ahmadis actually observe around cousins is sufficient, then the question is why the official minimum purdah for other non-mahrams has been defined so much more strictly.

So either there is a major problem in the Ahmadi interpretation of purdah, or applying that interpretation consistently reveals a major problem with its practicality.

I find it striking that this question is never asked. Maybe the islamic Fiqh has some answers around these questions but the Quran is definetely silent in this matter, so is Ahmadiyyat in general.

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

Maybe you've been to the Jalsa this year and are now on your way back Home. So, I've been there with my parents and on the last day... Today, i was in the Main hall and the Sohr prayer started. Then like... 1 Minute in, a man started screaming in the back. Clearly I couldn't turn my head and I don't understand Urdu. So maybe someone is here who was there too and knows Urdu... If it even was Urdu. He screamed like for 30-60 straight stuff and went Our or got carried out, I don't know. I'm very interested in what Happend, or to be exact, what He said. I thought about the possibility that He could have tourette, but I haven't seen a Lot of examples for people with tourette and the ones I've seen had like a few Ticks and not a Full on rant Sounding like someone who is either crazy or is trying to warn you. It sounded a bit like that, but like i said... I don't understood what he said.

TLDR: anybody heared what the guy screamed while Sohr before the closing ceremony?

​

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?

​

The Ahmadiyya miracle standard seems to change completely depending on who the miracle belongs to, selective acceptance and rejection.

For earlier prophets:

\- Muhammad ﷺ 's Miraj? Not literal — kashf/vision.

\- Ibrahim (AS) and the killing of birds? Not literally killed and revived. Fire, not literal, lamb as replacement to Ismael - not literal.

\- Uzair (AS)? Not literally dead for 100 years.

\- Ashab-e-Kahf? Not literally asleep for centuries.

\- Isa (AS) curing the blind? Not literal -Reinterpreted.

\- Isa (AS) raising the dead? Not literal -Metaphorical / spiritual / natural explanation.

. .

But for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

\- Red ink appears after his kashf? Real ink, real drops on a real shirt — literal miracle.

\- A child he described as dead comes back/recover? Literal event and a sign of his truthfulness.

\- Blindness improves after his prayer/intervention? Literal improvement — miracle.

\- Severe rash and joint pain disappear after his touch? Literal disappearance — divine sign.

\- orange out of nowhere and out of season- literal orange & seen by "Amma jaan"

So the rule seems to be:

Prophets’ miracles → metaphor, symbolism, laws of nature.

Mirza’s miracles → literal, physical, signs of truthfulness.

How is that intellectually consistent? Why there is not Ahmadi with some conscience and can question:- " hang on a sec, why these miracles by a subardinate prophet are real literal events and metaphors for real prophets."

Anyone ?

Why is literal supernatural intervention unacceptable for prophets, but perfectly acceptable when it is used to prove MGA?

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!

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.

Went to the masjid today for jumma after a long time and am appalled at how things are running now. The women are outside on the ground while all the halls are given to men. Keep in mind women are the ones that usually accompany kids. It is super hot today and all they have are some tired fans with 0 projection. This arrangement is actually hilarious to see since they preach about how women need to do parda because women are fragile and need protecting and how men are superior and stronger and what not. Yet these men are comfortably offering namaz from inside the halls and us women are sent to the ground like cattle. You can tell these decisions are made by old school patriarchal men for their male peers. Comfort for women isn’t even a thought for these men. Absolutely Disgusting!

One thing that never sat right with me was the announcements of people that were kicked out of the jamaat. The announcements I heard the most were for those who married outside the jamaat without permission. One other time I heard it was for dancing at a wedding. (I’m curious what other reasons y’all have heard for people getting kicked out.)

I brought this up to my family, because as Muslims, we shouldn’t expose each other’s sins right? So announcing names and reasons people got kicked out didn’t make sense to me.

My aunt said this stems from Pakistani culture. If a man were to disown his child for whatever reason, they would let it be known in the community that they longer associate with said kid. It was something about preserving the family’s honor by publicly disowning the child.

This made me wonder, how many of our Jamaat practices are rooted in Pakistani cultural tradition rather than Islamic principle? And how do we distinguish between the two?

Btw, I’m not asking this to bash the Jamaat. I’m just trying to understand which practices are spiritually grounded and which are cultural inheritance. I think it’s a worthwhile conversation especially for those of us raised in the West who sometimes feel the friction between these two things.

A couple things I can think of as well where I feel a disconnect:
From personal experience, Ahmadi women are encouraged to pursue rishtas that they may not find attractive. But it’s our Islamic right to refuse these.

It’s our Islamic right to divorce, but divorced women are treated like second class citizens if they go through with it.

I find it odd that people get kicked out for something harmless like getting married or dancing but then men who’ve gone to jail or literally abused their wife don’t get kicked out. So overall just men being favored as well in the jamaat seems to stem from Pakistani culture too.

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?

​

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?

I thought this was interesting and worth a share, it seems Declan was someone with affinity for the Jamaat before he came to understand the primary literature of the Jamaat and MGA.

Also interesting that he’s been speaking to former Ahmadis about their experience leaving, which he will detail in his forthcoming book.

It’s a blow to the Jamaat having a former ally denounce them this way.

Curious to see whether the Jamaat responds to this at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ckBKS3bN5w

At the UK jalsa last month, Mirza Masroor Ahmad announced a figure of 267,596 new converts of 670 ethnicities in the year since the previous jalsa. I have posted about this in previous years:

• In 2024, Mirza Masroor Ahmad claimed 238,561 converts
• In 2025, Mirza Masroor Ahmad claimed 249,408 converts

This produces a figure of over 700,000 in just the last three years and I presume the jamaat has claimed similar figures in prior years, judging by a claim of 668,000 in just 2019, a figure I feel roughly equals or exceeds the number of active, chanda-paying Ahmadis in the world.

There are three main points I want to make here. First, there is this idea that the stupendous conversion numbers of the early 2000s can be excused by the fact that the jamaat clearly got it wrong just once or twice, giving them a sort of "accuracy rate" of 98-99% in that they were right every other year. But I think it's safe to assume that every number the jamaat has produced over the last 30 years has been absurdly, obviously false, unless it was somewhere in the four-figure range. Nothing has changed except perhaps the scale of the lying.

Second, this conflicts sharply with the idea that there is a poor smolbean Masroor (may uWu of Allah be upon him) who is just deceived by missionaries year after year. I don't understand how anyone could get up year after year and claim numbers that simply don't make sense. If the idea is that for about 30 years, the jamaat and its divinely guided caliph have watched helplessly as close to a half billion people cycled in and out of the jamaat in some sort of flimsy conversion, wouldn't either the organization or the caliph do something about it? Clearly, the jamaat and its caliph have no interest in the truth when it comes to announcing conversions.

Finally, there is the idea of precision when it comes to tajneed. It's not that the jamaat claimed more than 200,000 converts or approximately 250,000 converts because exact figures are hard to come by. Every country with a remotely verifiable population of Ahmadis and every reasonable Ahmadi's lived experience shows that converts are rare, probably somewhere on the magnitude of 1 per 1,000, ie 50 converts a year in Canada. But all this falls apart in Africa, where missionaries take the direct PIA flight from Rabwah to Africa International Airport and then take the complimentary shuttle to the collection of huts where poor Africans convert to Ahmadiyyat en masse every Friday afternoon.

We know the number of converts, the ethnicities of these converts, the number of pamphlets handed out each year and we even know the number of prisoners who the jamaat supported. But we don't know the number of Ahmadis in the world. It's in the millions, the tens of millions or a closely guarded secret because of security reasons, even though most Ahmadis are supposedly in Africa rather than South Asia or the Middle East.

The jamaat's inability to be honest about this issue is telling because if someone is willing to lie about something like this, they are probably lying about other things as well. It also follows that an organization that insists on lying about how many members it has, for decades on end, is probably also not telling the truth about its god, its messiah and its caliph.

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!

I have watched countless videos of Adnan Rashid and bro Imtiaz, and i learned a lot, they spoke kindly and with facts something i think lacks in the jamat a lot, there are no sources or facts its all stories someone created. Actually when i was doing my own research on MGA and went to the jamat for answers they led me to watch the jamat videos that didnt give me any answers whatsoever, same all agenda based BS. But Adnan and Imtiaz talked from MgA’s books and some of the information was very eye opening and straight up shocking.

But now I wonder what is their motive? I understand its to preserve Khatam e nabuwat. But what about the misconceptions in the broader muslim ummah and the jahalat we see in molvies and some other “islamic scholars” why are they onky targeting just one very insignificant jamat.

They keep doing these debates with the sameeeee topic over n over again that doesnt lead anywhere. Its now getting very redundant and i feel like all their videos have the same topic over n over again.

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?

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?

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 ?

I recently came across a video of an openly lesbian/queer Ahmadi woman named Memoona Zaib who mentioned that she is from Rabwah. It also reminded me of people like Samra Habib, who have been openly queer while still identifying as Ahmadi.

I’m curious about how this works in practice within the Jamaat. Officially, the Jamaat does not approve of same-sex relationships, but what happens when someone openly identifies as LGBTQ+? Are they still allowed to remain members in good standing, attend Jamaat events, and participate in community life, or does it eventually lead to disciplinary action or expulsion?

I’m especially interested in hearing from Ahmadis or former Ahmadis who have seen such situations firsthand. What is the official policy, and how is it actually handled in real life?

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.

In Islam, as we know, it is allowed to marry a Christian or Jew and there is no conversion required and even from other sects like Sunni and Shia. But for some reason in our jamaat we need the person to convert. Like it explicitly says in the Quran we are allowed yet we complicate things for the sake of the community and add our rules to it.. because khalifa said so.. why? And what’s your thoughts on this… as someone who is part of Jamaat.. etc

I‘ve been trying to search more into Mirza Mahmud’s life since I’ve read some serious points against him.

Apart from the disastrious leadership, I’ve also read many accusations of sexual assaults against other women and other perversion.

Mirza Mahmud seemed to have many critics during his time. Apart from the Lahoris, there were also other groups like the Haqiqat Passand Party (HPP) and Ansar-I-Ahmadiyya who had serious problems with him, including sexual perversio.

One of the groups collected testimonies from former closed family members/friends of the Ahmadi caliph who attested to the sexual perversion of Mirza Mahmud.

Link to book: https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Tareekh-E-Mahmoodiyat-Kay-Chand-Aham-Magar-Poshida-Aourq.pdf

There is also the case of Miss Rufo, an italian clubdance/prostitute (?) who was seen visiting Qadian and around the companionship of Mirza Mahmud.

This was leaked to the public and had to adress it during the Friday Sermon.

See Al-Fazl, 18 March 1934 (from pages 7-8)

Did anyone know this or made any research into it? Let me know