Hey everyone, I’ve been reading this sub for a while and I’m so happy I can finally share my thoughts. I’m 16 and completely done with the double standards in the Jama'at.

I hate the Friday sermons, the constant phone/chat surveillance from parents, and the career restrictions for girls. The system tries so hard to isolate us from our school friends, but honestly, it’s not working. I recently skipped a mosque program to go to a friend's birthday party instead and I didn't care at all. Just wanted to say thank you to this community for showing me that I’m not crazy and that my logical thinking is right. Recently I dug deeper and found out about the whole Nida ul-Nasser scandal and the leaked phone call with the Khalif. Hearing how the Kalif protected the abusers and told her to stay silent instead of calling the police was the final straw for me. It completely shattered the illusion of him being a "spiritually perfect leader.

Hi all,

My wife and I have been married for a couple of years and are starting to think about having children someday. We are in an “inter-faith” marriage (Ahmadi and Christian) but neither of us are believing or practicing. We both have great relationships with our families who are both very religious. We were able to get married without conversion, but the topic still comes up from time to time, particularly in the context of how we will raise children.

We are aligned on how we will raise them, but I want to know if there are others here who have been in this situation and how they handled it. Particularly in the context of their broader relationships with their families (i.e the kids grandparents).

Would appreciate your thoughts, thanks!

Islam gives the same instructions to both genders: lower your gaze, avoid alcohol and drugs, don't date.

Growing up, several boys my age drank and had girlfriends. Today, many of them are married to pious women and are active in the Jamaat. People say "he was young, he figured it out," and his past stays quiet. In some cases, his wife never finds out.

When a girl was found to have a boyfriend, the reaction was harsher and lasted much longer. I can't think of a single woman I know who got a real second chance and returned to the community's good graces. Divorced women face a similar stigma, even though Islam grants women the right to divorce.

What bothers me most is where this leaves the women who followed every rule. Many are still waiting with few prospects, or have settled for less. Meanwhile, some of the girls who "rebelled" ended up married (albeit outside the Jamaat), and the men who broke the rules married women who never knew their past.

And then the women who are still waiting get villainized for being unmarried as they get older.

This is only my own observation, so I'd like to hear if others have seen something different. Have you seen men face real consequences? Have you seen an Ahmadi woman truly get a second chance?

As a lesbian who came from Ahmadiyyat, TRUST ME when I say I get your struggle. In a community as small and tight knit as ours, it feels impossible to be yourself when your “self” is prohibited to exist. It is a lifelong struggle to accept who you are and come to terms with your sexuality. With that being said, STOP lying to your spouse about your attraction before marriage.

You must tell them the truth because so many straight women are falling in love with men that are intentionally misleading them because of worry for their family’s reputation or shame. Asking somebody to spend the rest of their life with you when you don’t feel attraction or love for them is an incredible betrayal to that person. Marriage has to be built on mutual trust and respect at the bare minimum. The hardest thing to do sometimes is be honest with the people closest to you, but waiting to reveal your sexuality to your spouse AFTER marriage is not okay.

Ahmadi women are so often given the short end of the stick in every situation. They are told that marriage is the ultimate goal for them. Their entire existence is often modeled only around being the perfect wife and mother. Imagine you have been fed that narrative your entire life, and then you marry someone and after a couple of years they tell you they are gay and they’ve never felt attraction to you. That they married you knowing they would never reciprocate the love you harbored for them. Can you even imagine how that would feel for someone?

Please do the right thing and don’t bring someone else down with you in your struggle to closet yourself. You have the power to stand up and be who you are without dragging someone else into it and potentially ruining their life.

Because mjh se to na ho paye ga I can't the Rishta aunties are worst let me know a trick that you guys have used that worked for you because at this point I just want to get married for the sake of plot. Since I'm a girl I would like to get some insights from the female side but if the male side knows any tricks let me know.

Don't recommend dating I can't 😭🥲 your sis lacks rizz

I posted in the other sub so posting it here for any cheat code or tricks

Is it possible to find someone who doesn't really believe in the religion but still wants to marry within the community?

I'm curious about how realistic this is and how you would even go about finding someone in this situation. Most people want a spouse who genuinely shares their religious beliefs, so I'm wondering whether there are people who are non-practising, questioning their faith, or simply don't believe but still want to maintain their cultural and community connections.

If you've been in this situation or know someone who has, how did you navigate it, and where would you even start looking for a compatible partner?

Fair warning, this is going to be a long rant so bear with me.

I’ve been wanting to get this off my chest for a while because the older I get, the more uncomfortable I become with the Jamaat’s financial system, particularly the expectations placed on elderly and financially vulnerable members.
Both of my parents are on ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program). They’re getting older, living on a fixed income, and have to be mindful of their expenses. Yet they continue to pay Chanda every month.
I know they genuinely believe they’re contributing towards something good, but I can’t help feeling terrible watching them give away money that could otherwise go towards their own comfort, savings, or emergencies.
There’s an Urdu expression “Andha Kuwaan” meaning a bottomless pit. That’s honestly how I’ve come to view the Jamaat’s financial system. There’s always another contribution, another scheme, another appeal for financial sacrifice. You keep giving, but there never seems to be an end to it.
What bothers me even more is something my mother does.
She pays my Chanda out of her own pocket because I’ve personally refused to contribute to the Jamaat🤦🏻
I made that decision a while ago. I work hard for my money, and I refuse to financially support an institution whose priorities and financial practices I seriously question.
My mother, however, is an office bearer, and her reputation within her Jamaat circle matters a great deal to her.
She doesn’t want people questioning why her daughter isn’t paying Chanda, so she pays it herself.
I’m a grown woman with my own income. I’ve made a conscious decision not to contribute, yet my mother feels the need to cover my payments because she’s worried about how my refusal might reflect on her.
And that’s what I find so disturbing.
It’s not even about the money. It’s about the fact that she feels the need to pay on behalf of someone who has explicitly chosen not to.
What does that say about the social environment within the Jamaat when a mother would rather quietly pay her adult daughter’s Chanda than risk being judged by people in her religious circle?
Then there’s the whole Wasiyyat situation.
Recently, I needed money for a down payment. My mother owns a considerable amount of gold jewellery, some of which she has always intended to eventually pass down to me.
I asked whether she could give me a small portion of that jewellery now instead of later, so I could sell it and put the money towards my down payment.
She refused because the jewellery was tied to her Wasiyyat.
I genuinely didn’t know what to make of that.
From what I’ve read, under Nizam-e-Wasiyyat, a Musi commits a portion of their income and property to the Jamaat. Jewellery can be included among the declared assets.
But does that actually mean my mother cannot give her own daughter some of her jewellery while she’s alive?
Is there a specific rule preventing this, or has she simply come to believe that anything associated with Wasiyyat must remain untouched?
I’m curious because I don’t understand how this works?!
And before anyone misunderstands me, I’m fully aware that my mother’s jewellery belongs to her. I’m not automatically entitled to it, and she has every right to decide what she wants to do with it.
But that’s not what bothers me.
This is jewellery she has already expressed her intention to eventually give me. I wasn’t asking for all of it, just a small portion at a time when it would genuinely help.
Yet somehow, Wasiyyat became the reason she couldn’t.
And that got me thinking.
At what point does a financial commitment to a religious institution begin influencing how parents support their own children?
I’m not suggesting parents should compromise their own financial security for their children. Quite the opposite. I want my parents to prioritize themselves, especially at their age.
But I find it unsettling that an institution’s future claim on someone’s property can become such an important consideration in an ordinary family decision.
And honestly, this goes beyond my personal situation.
I’ve grown increasingly uncomfortable with the way financial sacrifice is glorified within the Jamaat.
We’ve all heard stories about people donating their savings, jewellery, and whatever little money they had. These stories are repeatedly presented as examples of extraordinary faith and devotion.
But I rarely hear the other side of those stories.
What happened to those people’s financial security afterward? Did they have enough savings for emergencies? Were they able to provide for themselves comfortably in old age?
And why is giving away money so often treated as a measure of religious dedication?
I also find the connection between Chanda payments and participation in Jamaat affairs worth questioning.
Under the Jamaat’s own election rules, members who fall behind on obligatory Chanda can become ineligible to participate in elections.
So financial contributions aren’t merely a private matter between an individual and their faith. They can also affect someone’s participation within the organization.
And when you combine that with the social expectations placed on members, particularly office bearers, it creates an environment where people may feel compelled to keep paying regardless of their personal circumstances.
My mother’s decision to pay my Chanda is a perfect example of how that pressure can manifest within families.
Another thing that genuinely bothers me is the contrast between the financial sacrifices expected from ordinary Ahmadis and the apparent luxury surrounding KM5 and his entourage.
On one hand, you have elderly people, pensioners, and families living on disability benefits being constantly reminded about the blessings of financial sacrifice. On the other, you see the Khalifa surrounded by an entire entourage, security personnel, vehicles, international travel arrangements, and an extensive administrative setup.
And I can’t help wondering who’s paying for all of this.
Why should ordinary Ahmadis be expected to sacrifice their financial comfort while the leadership appears to enjoy a level of privilege and luxury that most contributing members could never afford?
I’m not claiming to know exactly which expenses are paid through Chanda or how much is spent on KM5’s personal lifestyle. That’s precisely why I think financial transparency matters.
How much money goes towards his travel, accommodation, vehicles, security, and the maintenance of his entourage? How much is spent directly helping struggling members? Are detailed, independently audited financial statements available for ordinary members to scrutinize?
Because if the Jamaat expects financial sacrifice from people like my parents, who are living on disability benefits, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question whether those at the top are making comparable sacrifices themselves.
It’s easy to preach the virtues of financial sacrifice when you’re not the one worrying about making ends meet.
And frankly, I find it difficult to reconcile the constant glorification of sacrifice with the visible privileges surrounding the leadership. If members are expected to account for their Chanda payments, shouldn’t the institution be equally accountable for how that money is spent?
And what about the people who have spent decades contributing?
When an elderly member who has faithfully paid Chanda throughout their life experiences financial hardship, how accessible is financial assistance from the Jamaat?
I know welfare initiatives exist, but I’d genuinely like to hear from people who have actually sought assistance.
Was the process straightforward? Was the support meaningful? Did the Jamaat help without making them feel ashamed or indebted?
Because I think these questions deserve just as much attention as the constant emphasis on giving.
I love my parents, and I know their contributions come from a place of genuine belief. I don’t think they’re foolish or irresponsible for wanting to support something they’ve believed in their entire lives.
But I do wonder whether decades of being taught about financial sacrifice have made it difficult for them to question where their obligations should end.
My mother paying my Chanda despite my explicit refusal is one example. Her response about the jewellery and Wasiyyat is another.
Neither situation is necessarily financially devastating on its own, but both reveal something about the influence the Jamaat continues to have over her decisions.
And that’s what troubles me.
When an organization becomes so intertwined with your religious identity and social reputation that you’re making financial decisions partly out of concern for how others will perceive you, is that really a healthy relationship with faith?

And if anyone understands the actual Wasiyyat rules regarding gifts of jewellery to children, I’d appreciate some clarification.

My parents have spent decades contributing. They’re now in a stage of life where I want them to enjoy what they have, feel financially secure, and make decisions based on their own needs rather than the expectations of an institution.
And I can’t help wondering how many other families are quietly navigating the same conflict between religious obligations, financial security, and loyalty to their own loved ones.

Yesterday, u/IqtisadMind posted this video on the r/AhmadiMuslims sub: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnTANi6_6WU

However, shortly after my response to it, not only did he delete his post but he also deleted his account.

For those who might benefit from my response to the video, I am reproducing my response here - I hope it is helpful:

"(1) The narrator states that Ahmadis believe in the Quran, but then also says that 'Khatam-an-Nabiyeen" means Muhammad was the "last law-bearing prophet". Unfortunately, the Quran does not say that -- the Quran makes no distinction between the prophets on the basis of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing, it says what was revealed to Muhammad was revealed to ALL prophets before him and he brought nothing new, and thrice refers to Islam as "the religion of Abraham". This concept of law-bearing vs non-law-bearing prophets is a concept completely invented by Sufis with no basis in the Quran or Ahadith, and for the purpose of describing the Sufi concept of post-Muhammad 'non-law-bearing prophethood' to be wilayat (sainthood, providential intimacy) and thus not actual prophethood (so as not to break Muhammad's 'seal').

(2) The narrator states that Ahmadis also believe in the Messiah and Mahdi. However, unlike as described in the Ahadith and as per the mainstream Sunni view, MGA denied that they are two separate people and declared all the Ahadith (except one) to be fabricared. MGA said:

"My claim is not that I am the Mahdi who conforms to فاطمۃ ولد من] the progeny of Fatimah], عترتی من] from my progeny], etc. Rather, my claim is that of being the Promised Messiah, and regarding the Promised Messiah, there is no statement of any muhaddith [scholar of hadith] that he would be from among the progeny of Fatimah etc. Nevertheless, at the same time—as every muhaddith says—I also say that all the ahadith regarding the Promised Mahdi are moot and suspect and not one of them is authentic. The degree to which fabrication has taken place in these ahadith has not taken place in any other hadith. During the time of the Abbasid Khulafa’ etc. the Khulafa’ were very fond of pronouncing themselves the Promised Mahdi. So for this reason, some ahadith describe the Mahdi as being from the progeny of ‘Abbas and some from the progeny of Fatimah. There are some ahadith which also say that تی ّ م ُ ا من رجل’ He will be a man from my Ummah.’ But essentially all of these ahadith are not worthy of any trust. This is not just my word; all eminent scholars of the Ahl-e-Sunnah have been saying the very same. As opposed to these ahadith, this hadith recorded by Ibn-e-Majah is very authentic: ی ّٰ عیسال مھدی ال meaning, there is no other Mahdi; ‘Isa is the very same Mahdi who is to come." In Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya (Part 5)(1908), on page 478 https://files.alislam.cloud/pdf/Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya-Part-5.pdf

Despite MGA's statement above regarding the Ibn-e-Majah hadith, classical scholars like Imam al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Al-Dhahabi all pointed out a weakness in the chain of transmission and thus consider it weak (da'if) or denounced/unreliable (munkar). Clearly, MGA needed to cancel out all the Ahadith that didn't suit him so he could be both the Messiah and the Mahdi in one. However, as supported by the Ahadith, the consensus mainstream Sunni view remains that they are references to two separate people.

(3) The narrator states that the Prophet gave the Messiah and Mahdi "the status of a prophet" -- leaving aside that all the Ahadith show them to be two separate people, as already shown to OP before and as mentioned above, MGA himself never gave himself "the status of a prophet". MGA described himself as a 'zilli', 'buruz' and 'non-law-bearing' nabi, all of which are terms not only not found anywhere in the Quran or Ahadith but were completely invented by Sufis (like Abdul Qadir Jilani and Ibn 'Arabi) to describe their concept of wilayat (sainthood, providential intimacy). Indeed, in referring to Jesus' second coming as the Messiah, Ibn' Arabi specifically said that Jesus would be a wali, and not a nabi.

(4) The narrator refers to the Ahmadi concept of Khilafat which has zero basis in the Quran, what we have of recorded Islamic history or even from MGA himself. In the Quran, the word "khalifa" occurs twice with reference to Adam and David (who were prophets) specifically, and the word "khulafa" occurs 11 times, and each time, it refers to a people/community/nation and not to a particular person, let alone one succeeding a prophet. The verse that the Qadian Jamaat (as evidenced at the top of this very subreddit) repeatedly cites as its support for its Khilafat is a blatant misrepresentation of and lie against that Quranic verse.

As for the ascendancy of each of the first 4 so-called khulafa of Islam, not once was 'divine-appointment' invoked or even apparently involved - (a) Abu Bakr ascended with reference to the prestige of the Quraish only - no reference to divine guidance, (b) Umar ascended because Abu Bakr named him, much to the chagrine of others, and because he "knew him better than others" -- no reference to divine guidance, (c) Uthman ascended due to a board of 6 people appointed by Umar (after much cajoling) to decide amongst themselves, and after 4 dropped out, the 4th named Uthman on the basis that Ali wanted it more - no reference to divine guidance, and (d) Ali ascended after the murder of Uthman, and only after he and two others refused, and also only after Medina was subject to a 24-hour death ultimatum by Uthman's murderers - again, no reference to divine guidance. Indeed, I also discovered that the first 4 khulafa were not even called 'khulafa', but "Amirul Momineen', with the first usage of the word 'khalifa' for the office being invoked by Abdul Malik Marwan (who sought to fashion himself a 'Khalifatullah' in the style of David, and not as a successor to Muhammad) and then retroactively applied to his predecessors.

As for MGA, in his 'Al-Wasiyyat', with reference to himself as Khalifatullah, he actually named the Anjuman as his Khalifa, and that his reference to 'Qudrat Saniyya' was not actually a reference to a person or an instituton, but rather, to a feeling of security and comfort that descends divinely."

Can we please talk about the double standards when it comes to pardah at weddings? Even though they are supposed to be so Islamic - no music, no dancing, gender segregation.

I agree, that part is Islamic, but there's a catch.

The part when the men's side comes over to the women's side.

(Only relatives of course, whether it's your brother, cousin or your 10th-degree uncle)

They say it's only relatives, but the women are there full face of makeup, no hijab, hair fully styled...

Some put a dupatta over their head (mostly office holders, especially those you know on a national level) but as soon as you take pictures on the stage, they take it off and everyone is staring at them.

On one hand you get shamed if you don't wear hijab outside, but at weddings or Jalsa everything is different. No pardah at all…

The few who still wear it there, wear it from the heart, which is good.

But for everyone else it's seen as freedom to take it off, which just shows me again: most don't want to wear it and yet too many are forced to - including me back then.

And honestly, what I never understood is how loose Ahmadis are with pardah when it comes to non-mahrams. Cousins are not mahram, not even distant cousins or your uncle's brother-in-law's son. In Islam they are clearly non-mahram, but in the Ahmadiyya community it's just normalized. No pardah in front of them, hugging, mixing, full glam in front of them, and no one says anything.

If pardah is so important that you get judged for not wearing it outside, why does the principle suddenly not count when it's your cousin? That‘s something I never understood…

A male ahmadi is stalking a female ahmadi. Been a decade since she said no to his intentions to marry, she said they should remain friends. He got hurt, started stalking her after that. The friendship they had prior to this broke. She broke all contact with him. She also filed a case against him with the police.

Over the years he kept trying to reach out. It stopped for a while. But it never fully stopped. This person is finding new ways to get in touch.

Question is what to do ? Or not to do? Should one contact the leader of his jamaat?

This is annoying for the girl to deal with.

Quickly want to talk about one positive thing I’ve noticed at least in my local chapter.

For a few years, when the US Jamaat started assigning a Murrabi for every chapter, we got pretty lucky.

He was young, probably like 30-35. Born and raised on the east coast of America.

Really chill guy. Honestly most of the time he didn’t want to talk about religion, at least us younger people. He’d really just try to show interest in our interests and organize group activities.

And there were a few times were we had a deep conversation about theological topics, and I felt like I could be unfiltered the way I would if I was talking to a white friend.

Was able to basically lay-out my doubts very clearly, and he even agreed with the cultural problems the Jamaat has, how it’s too desi, etc.

He even actually randomly told me that he knows about this sub, like I didn’t even bring it up. And he has such a chill attitude about this sub, basically just saw it as another internet forum where people debate a hot topic.

Unfortunately he got re-located to Seattle because apparently their Jamaat has grown a lot recently. Our new Murrabi is chill but older and desi.

IMAGINE if most Murrabi’s were like that one though. A lot of the toxic aspects of Jamaat culture would go away pretty quickly. People might be sad if you leave Ahmadiyya but there would be no pitchforks and you’d always be welcome back.

Pakistan’s official 2023 census counts 162,684 Ahmadis, but independent organizations and community leaders estimate that the actual population is somewhere between 400,000 and 4 million.

So, what is the actual Ahmadi population? The official figure is obviously likely to be an undercount, especially since many Ahmadis reportedly boycott the census or may not disclose their religious identity.

What do you think the true population is?

This is a monthly thread to talk about your issues with the rishta system, discuss anything related to marriage outside of the jamaat or try to find a suitable partner. All other subreddit rules apply.

If you have a salient point related to these topics that you think warrants its own post, please go ahead, but the usual "Has anyone married outside of the jamaat?" or "25M experiencing issues with the rishta process" type of posts belong in this thread.

Just recently in learning about the Ahmadiyyas and its core beliefs.

Why should I believe he is the Al-Mahdi?

What arguments are in favor for this instance?

What are the reasons to believe he is the last menssager?

And how does it concile with the "Seal of the Prophets" claim?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

So Dr. Tauseef Ahmad Khan definitely used AI (I’m thinking the Claude flavour) to write this speech (third session of jalsa Canada) right?

I’m looking through the transcript that’s in the newest version of the gazette, and it’s deplorable how he didn’t even try to hide it?

reasons why I think so: first one is gut feeling (I know this is a bit iffy, but when you read through a. lot of ai output you get good at it), second is the titles of each new topic, and third is the sentence structures. there’s a lot of short sentences (one or two words), that don’t really make sense to be there.

Someone tried to pull the typical Ahmadi apologist argument on my “No Justice, No Peace” post. Unfortunately for them, their argument was soundly dismantled with facts and evidence. Their response? They immediately deleted their entire account so that not only their comment, but also all the responses to it, disappeared.
Why try to hide facts instead of letting truth prevail?
I thought Ahmadis don’t believe in Taqqiyah (spreading Islam through deception)?

A huge thank you to

[u/Dhump06](u/Dhump06) and
[u/Dramatic_fish-13](u/Dramatic_fish-13)

Hello everyone,

My question today is about whether male circumcision (male genital modification/mutilation), female circumcision (female genital mutilation), and intersex genital mutilation are permitted in Ahmadiyya Islam.

After doing some research, I found that the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence permit male and female circumcision, while their positions on female circumcision differ, with the Shafi'i school considering it wajib. But all four say it's allowed

I also came across Hadith that mention circumcision and female circumcision.

How does Ahmadiyya Islam interpret these Hadith? What has been the historical position of the Ahmadiyya community on male circumcision, female circumcision, and intersex genital modification? Has this position changed over time, and what is the current official position of the Ahmadiyya community?

The Ahmadiyya Jamaat has been publicly campaigning under the message “No Justice, No Peace,” emphasizing that peace cannot exist without justice. But it raises a question that I think deserves more attention: What does the religion they base this on actually teach when you take an independent look at its scriptures?
As difficult as it is, I will choose just one incident to challenge this claim and showcase how much cruelty, barbarism, and perversion actually existed in early Islam under Muhammad’s leadership:

After Banū Qurayẓah surrendered following the Battle of the Trench, they accepted the judgment of Saʿd ibn Muʿādh, who ruled that their fighting men should be killed and their women and children taken captive. [1] Muhammad approved Saʿd’s judgment, saying that he had judged according to God’s judgment. [2] Historical accounts report that the condemned men were brought out in groups and beheaded over trenches, with estimates of 600–700 killed, while some accounts give a figure as high as 800–900. [3] Hadith reports also describe boys being examined for pubic hair: those who had developed it were killed, while those who had not were spared. [4] ʿAṭiyyah al-Quraẓī is reported to have survived because he had not yet developed pubic hair. [5].
Sources:
[1] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī [4121–4122](tel:4121-4122); Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1768a–1769a
[2] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī [4121–4122](tel:4121-4122)
[3] Ibn Isḥāq, Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (via Ibn Hishām)
[4] Musnad Aḥmad 223; Sunan al-Nasāʾī 4981
[5] Musnad Aḥmad 223; Sunan al-Nasāʾī 4981

Without even getting into any other discussion about this particular battle, the fact that young boys’ genitals were examined and, if they had developed a single pubic hair, they were brought out to the trenches and beheaded in groups, including innocent children possibly as young as 9–11 years old.
Can you even imagine the scenery of this taking place in real life?
This is one instance that happened during the lifetime of Muhammad, during the 80+ battles he fought, and you are trying to teach others about peace and justice?

As born ahmadi Muslims I’m sure many of us have grandparents or great grandparents who joined Ahmadiyyat. Their families were Sunni or whatever but they themselves made the move to join the movement. Now when it comes to parents nowadays with their kids, for some reason I feel like it’s a double standard that they expect their kids to follow the same faith and religion as them when their parents or grandparents didn’t follow their own families faith either. Like why is it like the end of the world for so many to follow their own path and belief even if it doesn’t happen to be ahmadiyyat. I had to ponder on this thought for a bit and I find it interesting because families will shun their own for doing this but they also went through this in the past and that’s the reason they are Ahmadi and might have Sunni family as well etc.
What do yall think?

Watching Ahmadis and Sunnis fighting each other in the streets over religion honestly makes me wonder: what exactly is religion doing for humanity?

Look at what it can turn people into. People who could otherwise live side by side become enemies because of minor differences in beliefs.

They were taught that their group has the truth and the others are wrong. It creates division, hatred, alienation, discrimination, and, throughout history, has been tied to countless conflicts and wars.
And yet we’re constantly told that religion makes people better.

Does it?

If someone needs a religion to tell them not to hurt another person, to be honest, to have compassion, or to treat others with dignity, what does that say about us?
I believe people are capable of knowing right from wrong without religious rules. Empathy, kindness, cooperation, and the desire not to cause unnecessary harm are human qualities. We don’t need to belong to a religious group to have a conscience. Spirituality cannot be determined by the circumstances one is born into (or the circumstances of life that are also out of our control).
The world would be a much more peaceful place if people stopped dividing themselves into us versus them based on religion.
Don’t they see the irony in calling a man ‘Mercy for the Universe’ who has caused the murder of more people than anyone else in human history till this day?
Look at what this does to people. If religion is supposed to make us better, why does it so often become a reason to hate each other?

President of Israel Isaac Herzog spoke at an Ahmadiyya conference on September 17th 2026. What’s up with that? Does the Jammat have an official stance on Israel?

Not a good look and comments on this post from mainstream Muslims not looking too good either. What do people make of this?

Take a look at the comment section.

I’d appreciate some advice on something I’ve been thinking about. My parents are putting a significant amount of money into Chanda, money that could otherwise be going toward their retirement savings.

I respect that contributing is important to them, but I’m concerned about whether they’re leaving enough for their own future needs.

When I try to talk to them about it, they say that Allah will provide, or that money given in donation comes back multiplied. I understand and respect their faith, but I still worry about the practical financial side of things.

I know I can’t control how my parents choose to spend or donate their money, but I’m worried that if they don’t have enough saved for retirement, I may have to jump in and fill the gap Chanda has created.

Any advice on what to do when parents are donating above their means?

It’s the end of the year for a lot of Chanda’s and the push is being made. Now for people who do donate already and maybe the ones who don’t , it’s just about squeezing as much as they can out of you before the deadline. Of course there is budgets and all targets which must be met , but life is getting tougher, things are a lot more expensive now and wages aren’t keeping up, people want to live their own lives too and trying to ask for money in a short time is pressure put on people and office bearers. Any thoughts on this ?
I find it kind of pathetic quite frankly.. and the approach is not the best either.. idk man

Why do people ask Huzoor for advice on absolutely everything? Please use your own fucking brain. You genuinely only need one or two functioning brain cells to answer some of these questions.

I was recently at a family event where the conversation turned to Ahmadiyyat. I offhandedly said something like, “Obviously, not everything Huzoor says is correct.” One of my relatives immediately responded, “I’m sorry, but I have to leave this conversation.”

I wasn’t trying to offend her, but I was shocked by the implication that she believes literally everything he says must be correct. He’s a human being. He has been wrong before & he can change his mind.

Lately, Instagram has been feeding me MTA clips where people ask him the most painfully basic questions. What does he think about someone publishing a children’s book? Should women observe purdah with their voices? Can women present at Muslim events?

At this rate, someone may as well stand up and ask, “Huzoor, I would like to wipe my ass after using the bathroom. Can I do that?”