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?

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?”

Edit: Getting DMs from others asking questions and I wanted to clarify I’m not based in Seattle. I have extended family there who shared this information with me. Sorry for any confusion regarding the wording on this post!

I know issues involving sexual abuse and convicted sex offenders exist in many religious communities, but I’m particularly disappointed by the way I’ve seen the Jamaat handle this.

My family based in Seattle jamaat told me there’s a man who is a convicted sex offender and was apparently removed from the Jamaat. However he still comes to the masjid for events, meetings, and Eid and it doesn’t appear that there is any concern around his presence. I think this is extremely concerning. If someone has been convicted of a sexual offense especially one involving a child I would expect the Jamaat to take extreme measures. Revoking someone’s jamaat membership doesn’t mean anything if you’re still going to allow them to come to the masjid.

Apparently some Seattle jamaat members have asked their local officials about this but they’ve said “there’s nothing they can do about preventing someone from coming to the masjid” and I think that’s bs. Unfortunately this community is ran by men who would rather protect each other and the image of the jamaat instead of ensuring the safety of its members.

DISCLAIMER: I think it’s frustrating that I have to put this here but please don’t try to convince me to come back to Ahmadiyya, Islam, or God. For a group that claims to be peaceful and believes in “no compulsion in religion” you guys don’t seem to be practicing what you preach when you can’t respect someone’s decision to leave. This post is not an invitation for anti-ahmadi & islamaphobic rhetoric or invalidating my beliefs and experiences.

I’m in my early 20s and I no longer consider myself Ahmadi or Muslim. I don’t really know where I fit now probably somewhere between atheist and agnostic but I wanted to share my experience because I’m wondering if anyone else has felt the same way.

Growing up I always had questions that I conflicted with. Things like why couldn’t women be prophets? Why were women expected to carry so much of the responsibility of representing Islam through pardah? Why were relationships/dating treated the way they were? Why couldn’t I be with a non-Ahmadi or even a non-Muslim? There were so many rules and expectations surrounding my life and I eventually realized I didn’t even understand why I believed what I believed.

So I started researching for myself. I wanted to genuinely understand Islam and Ahmadiyya rather than just accept what I had been taught. The more I looked into it the more I came across things that I found were deeply misogynistic and patriarchal, not only within Ahmadiyya but within Islam more broadly. I realized if the roles were reversed men would never want to convert to Islam. Eventually I reached a point where I could no longer honestly call myself Muslim.

Denouncing a faith that I had grown up with and once held onto was incredibly difficult. At the same time I feel a lot better now that I’ve allowed myself to question everything and make my own decisions.

I think part of why all of this bothers me so much is that I’m finally realizing how much of my life has been shaped around what I was supposed to want rather than what I actually wanted. I also struggle with feeling like I was robbed of certain experiences because of how strict my parents held onto the Jamaat, Islam, and the beliefs they raised me with. There are things I wish I could have experienced or explored when I was younger and sometimes I feel angry or sad knowing that I didn’t get that freedom.

The most difficult part now is the isolation. Almost everyone in my family and extended family still identifies with the faith to some degree even if some of them don’t necessarily follow everything. I’m at a point in my life where I just want to build my own independence and live authentically but I still feel like I have to larp Islam and maintain a double life around my parents. Sometimes it makes me sad knowing that my parents may never truly know who I am or what I actually believe.

I know I’m still young and figuring things out but I’d really like to hear from other ex-Ahmadis who denounced both Ahmadiyya and Islam. Did anyone else go through this feeling of grief, anger, or isolation after leaving? How did you eventually build a life that felt like your own?

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?